# Satya Narayan Umar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 209
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-01-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2524 of 2014
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-narayan-umar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43281
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section
401/397-Criminal
Revision
against
order
rejection
of
discharge application-offence u/s 272
IPC adulteration in muster oil-Public
analyst found adulteration but not found
to be noxious-no offence u/s 272 IPC
made out-apart from that against same
allegation complaint still going on by
opposite party no. 2-parallel proceedings
against revisionist-quashed.
Held: Para-8
The contention of learned counsel for the
revisionist also find substance from the
material on record that the sample in
question was also taken under the
provisions
of
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 as is evident from
the Form 7 memo which was prepared by
the Food Inspector of raiding party and
the sample was also sent to the Public
Analyst and all the exercise was done by
the raiding party when the raid was done
under the provisions of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the
papers were also prepared according to
the said Act, copies of which has been
annexed
as
S.A.
1
supplementary
affidavit and the present FIR appears to
have been lodged by opposite party no.2
by
misinterpreting
the
Government
Order
dated
11.5.2010
though
the
complaint filed against the revisionist
under
the
Prevention
of
Food
210
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Adulteration Act for the offence in
question is still pending and going on,
hence
the
proceedings
against
the
revisionist on the basis of charge sheet
for prosecuting him u/s 272 IPC is bad in
the eyes of law. Moreover no offence u/s
272 IPC is made out against the
revisionist. Thus the impugned order
passed by the court below and the
proceedings of the aforesaid case is
hereby quashed.

## Text

1 All]
Satya Narayan Umar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
209
communicated by the Corporation at his
residential address at Gaya in the State of
Bihar. On these facts, the Apex Court has
held that part of cause of action has arisen
in the State of Bihar and accordingly writ
petition filed by the petitioner claiming
relief has been held maintainable in Patna
High Court.
19. In the present case, a criminal case
has been proceeded in Jammu and Kashmir,
while the petitioner was posted at Jammu
and Kashmir. Entire disciplinary proceeding
was carried on at Delhi wherein the
petitioner participated. The impugned order
has been passed at Delhi by the authority
situated at Delhi, therefore, the cause of
action has only arisen at Delhi. The
petitioner,
on
earlier
occasion
also,
approached the Delhi High Court against the
termination order. Merely because the
petitioner resides at Lucknow and the order
of termination has been communicated to
him at Lucknow, no cause of action has
arisen at Lucknow and thus, the writ petition
filed at Lucknow is not maintainable.
20. We are of the view that the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of
India (Supra) is distinguishable on the
facts.
21. We are of the view that the Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of
India and others (Supra), which is binding
upon us, squarely covers the issue.
22. In the result, the writ petition is
dismissed for want of jurisdiction as not
maintainable.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
Criminal Revision No. 2524 of 2014
Satya Narayan Umar
...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shailesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C.-Section
401/397-Criminal
Revision
against
order
rejection
of
discharge application-offence u/s 272
IPC adulteration in muster oil-Public
analyst found adulteration but not found
to be noxious-no offence u/s 272 IPC
made out-apart from that against same
allegation complaint still going on by
opposite party no. 2-parallel proceedings
against revisionist-quashed.
Held: Para-8
The contention of learned counsel for the
revisionist also find substance from the
material on record that the sample in
question was also taken under the
provisions
of
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 as is evident from
the Form 7 memo which was prepared by
the Food Inspector of raiding party and
the sample was also sent to the Public
Analyst and all the exercise was done by
the raiding party when the raid was done
under the provisions of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the
papers were also prepared according to
the said Act, copies of which has been
annexed
as
S.A.
1
supplementary
affidavit and the present FIR appears to
have been lodged by opposite party no.2
by
misinterpreting
the
Government
Order
dated
11.5.2010
though
the
complaint filed against the revisionist
under
the
Prevention
of
Food
210
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Adulteration Act for the offence in
question is still pending and going on,
hence
the
proceedings
against
the
revisionist on the basis of charge sheet
for prosecuting him u/s 272 IPC is bad in
the eyes of law. Moreover no offence u/s
272 IPC is made out against the
revisionist. Thus the impugned order
passed by the court below and the
proceedings of the aforesaid case is
hereby quashed.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar
Tripathi,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist and Sri R.K. Maurya, learned
A.G.A for the State.
2. The revisionist by means of this
revision has challenged the order dated
25.8.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions
Judge, Court No.6, District Jaunpur
illegally rejected the discharge application
of the revisionist which was filed by the
revisionist in S.T. No.379 of 2010 (State
Vs. Satya Narain) as Case Crime No.361
of 2010, u/s 272 IPC, P.S. Sujanganj,
district Jaunpur
3. The brief facts of the case are that
on 18.3.2010 at about 1.25 noon opposite
party no.2 Shri Kishun Chauhan who was
then posted as Supply Inspector in the
area Mungra Badshahpur, district Jaunpur
raided the shop of the revisionist
suspecting some adulteration in the
mustard oil (Kacchi Ghani). The raiding
team took the sample and sent the same to
the Public Analyst, Lucknow. Thereafter
the opposite party no.2 lodged FIR on
19.7.2010 at about 1 p.m. against the
revisionist with regard to the said
incident, which was registered as case
crime no.361 of 2010 at Police Station
Sujanganj, district Jaunpur under Section
272 I.P.C. The sample in question which
was sent by the Supply Inspector to the
Public Analyst, Lucknow, was found to
be adulterated as per the report of Public
Analyst dated 17.4.2010. In pursuance of
the Government Order No.G-617/88, 1055 Kha/10 dated 11.5.2010, the Supply
Inspector,
opposite
party
no.2
was
directed to lodge the FIR against the
revisionist. During investigation of the
case, the statement of the informant as
well as other members of the raiding team
were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who
supported the prosecution case. The
statement of the Public Analyst Dr. S.C.
Tiwari who prepared the report dated
17.4.2010 statement was recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C. and has stated that the sample was
found to be adulterated. After completion
of investigation on 31.7.2010, a charge
sheet was submitted against the revisionist
u/s 272 IPC. The revisionist who released
on bail by this Court on 16.9.2010. The
revisionist approached this Court by filing
Criminal Misc. Application No.141 of
2011 Sandhya Narayan Umar Vs. State of
U.P. and another which was disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 5.4.2011 to
move discharge application. In pursuance
of the said order the revisionist moved
discharge application before the court
below. The opposite party no.2 also filed
complaint u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 before the Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Jaunpur on
18.10.2010 on the basis of the report of the
Public Analyst dated 17.4.2010 and the
said complaint is pending before the said
court till today. The discharge application
was rejected by the trial court by the
impugned order passed on 25.8.2014,
hence the present revision has been filed
by the revisionist challenging the same.
4. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the sample
1 All]
Satya Narayan Umar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
in question which was seized from the
shop of the revisionist by the Supply
Inspector and sent to the Public Analyst, a
report
of
which
was
received
on
17.4.2010 shows that the sample was
found to be adulterated but the same was
not found to be noxious. As per statement
of the Public Analyst Dr. S.C. Tiwari
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. he too also
stated that the sample was found to be
adulterated but the substance found was
not noxious. As a complaint has also been
filed u/s 7/16 of P.F.A. Act by the
opposite party no.2 before the court of
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist,
Jaunpur on 18.8.2010 on the basis of the
report of the Public Analyst dated
17.4.2010 which is proceeding against the
applicant, hence the present prosecution
of the applicant u/s 272 IPC is wholly
unwarranted. Moreover, no offence u/s
272 IPC is made out against the
revisionist and the learned trial court
without considering the said fact has
rejected the discharge application in a
most
mechanical
manner
without
applying its mind. He further argued that
the sample was taken by the Supply
Inspector
under
the
provisions
of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 on 8.3.2010.
5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer
for quashing of the impugned order but
could not dispute the fact that as per
Public Analyst report, the sample in
question was found to be adulterated but
it was not found to be noxious.
6. Considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought
on record. It is an admitted fact that a
criminal complaint has been filed by
opposite party no.2 under Section 7/16 of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 before the Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ist, Jaunpur on 18.8.2010,
copy of which is annexed as annexure
no.7 to the accompanying affidavit. The
Supply Inspector who has taken the
sample from the shop of the applicant has
sent the sample to the Public Analyst,
Lucknow and as per report of Public
Analyst,
he
has
opined
that
"Saponification
value
unsaponifiable
matter and bellier turbidity temperature of
the
sample
exceed
the
prescribed
maximum limits of 177.0, 1.2% and 27.5o
c respectively for mustard oil and the
sample is adulterated.
7. From the perusal of the report, it
is clear that the sample exceeds the
prescribed standard provided under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. Moreover the report of the Public
Analyst also shows that he did not found
anything noxious which may warrant the
prosecution of the revisionist u/s 272 IPC.
The parallel proceeding initiated by
opposite party no.2 Supply Inspector one
under
the
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act against the revisionist
and other by lodging the FIR is not
permissible under law for the same
offence. Moreover the offence u/s 272
IPC is a seperate and substantive offence.
Even if the applicant is to be prosecuted
u/s 272 IPC, there should be material
evidence to show that the sample is
noxious and simply because it is found to
be adulterated does not warrant the
prosecution of the applicant for offence
under Section 272 IPC.
8. The contention of learned counsel
for the revisionist also find substance
from the material on record that the
sample in question was also taken under
212
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the provisions of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 as is evident from the
Form 7 memo which was prepared by the
Food Inspector of raiding party and the
sample was also sent to the Public Analyst
and all the exercise was done by the raiding
party when the raid was done under the
provisions
of
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and the papers were
also prepared according to the said Act,
copies of which has been annexed as S.A. 1
supplementary affidavit and the present FIR
appears to have been lodged by opposite
party
no.2
by
misinterpreting
the
Government Order dated 11.5.2010 though
the complaint filed against the revisionist
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act for the offence in question is still
pending and going on, hence the proceedings
against the revisionist on the basis of charge
sheet for prosecuting him u/s 272 IPC is bad
in the eyes of law. Moreover no offence u/s
272 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
Thus the impugned order passed by the court
below and the proceedings of the aforesaid
case is hereby quashed.
9. The petition stands allowed.
10. It is made clear that the
proceedings against the revisionist u/s
7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 which is stated to be pending
shall go on in accordance with law and be
concluded expeditiously in accordance
with law within the period of six months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order before the trial court
without
granting
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties if
there is no legal impediment.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
Criminal Revision No. 3781 of 2014
Mustakim
...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sumit Goyal
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C. -Section 125-Maintenance-whether
can be claimed by unmarried Muslim
daughter -even on achieving her majorityheld-'yes'.
Held: Para-11
The Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba
Khatoon (supra), after examining the
personal law of muslims, has already held
that a muslim father is liable to maintain
his major daughter till such time she is not
married. It is not disputed that O.P. No.2 is
major and that she is not yet married.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (3) SCC (Crl.) 868; 2008 (62) ACC 591;
1997 (6) SCC 233; 2002 (5) SCC 422; 2004
Crl. L.J. 573; 2008 (62) ACC 591.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.)
Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned
counsel for revisionist and Ms. Anjum
Haq, learned A.G.A.
"Whether
an
unmarried
major
Muslim daughter who is unable to
maintain herself, can claim maintenance
from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C,
is an issue which has fallen for
consideration in this revision."
1. Ms. Anjum/O.P. No.2, daughter
of the revisionist, claimed maintenance