# V.S. Mittal Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 991 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-11 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-s-mittal-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44099 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 7 All. V.S. Mittal Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 991 12. It can be explained in a different manner so as to mean that if after the filing of a execution proceedings in time, either the decree-holder or the judgement debtor dies and their legal representatives do not come on record, there would be no abatement of the execution proceedings. If there is no abatement of the execution proceedings they would remain pending on record of the court and as and when the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased party are brought on record, the execution would proceed further. 13. In view of the aforesaid position in law the execution once started within time would not abate due to death of a party or for want of substitution of the heirs and legal representatives rather it would remain pending with no progress until and unless someone as the heir or legal representative of the party comes on record and starts pursuing the same. 14. This is also the opinion of the Supreme Court in (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 149 V. Uthirapathi Vs. Ashrab Ali and others wherein it has been held that no time limit is prescribed for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the parties in execution and therefore the proceedings would not abate and remain pending leaving it open in case of death of decree holder/judgement debtor to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives at any time. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the provisions of Rule 3 and 4 of Order XXII C.P.C. are not applicable to execution proceedings and there is no provision prescribing time for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of any deceased party to the execution or for the abatement of the proceedings, there was no necessity for moving any application for seeking condonation of delay for the purposes of substitution and the petitioner could have been brought on record at any time, notwithstanding the time gap between the death of the party and the filing of the application. 16. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ----------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 4617 Of 2011 V.S. Mittal ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Revisionist: Sri Dharmendra Singhal 992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for Opposite Parties: Government Advocate Prevention of Food Adulteration Act -- Sections 7/16 -- Proprietary Food -- Rule 37-A and Rule 37-D of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 -- Summoning Order -- Application of Judicial Mind -- Revisionist-manufacturer of 'Deep Classic Mild Fat', a proprietary food, challenged the summoning order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 2185 of 2011 under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act -- contended that 'Deep Classic Mild Fat' being a proprietary food as defined under Rule 37-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (meaning food not standardized under the said Rules), the Magistrate had summoned him mechanically without application of judicial mind and the order is a cyclostyled/typed order with only a date filled in -- Held: Public Analyst, U.P., Lucknow in his report categorically stated that the sample contains less amount of milk fat and more amount of other edible fat; the manufacturer declared it as 'not Ghee & tastier than Deshi Ghee', which is a violation of Rule 37-D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, rendering the sample 'misbranded' -- the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, District Jhansi before the Magistrate who, after considering the material available on record, took cognizance and summoned the accused -- the learned Magistrate applied complete judicial mind -- the decisions cited by the revisionist are based on different facts and do not apply. Criminal Revision Dismissed -- Impugned order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Saharanpur summoning the revisionist under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Complaint Case No. 2185 of 2011 upheld -- impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity -- no interference warranted -- revision dismissed -- interim order, if any, vacated. (Para 3) Case Law Discussed: 1. Ram Pratap Singh and others v. State of U.P., 1991 JIC 333 2. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, decided on 4.11.1997 (Supreme Court) (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 2185 of 2011-State Vs. Naresh Jain and others, whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is the manufacturer of Deep Classic Mild Fat, which is a proprietary food and Rule 37-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 defines the proprietary food and the proprietary food means a food which has not been standardized under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionist in a mechanical manner without any application of mind to the facts of the case and the material available on record. It is next submitted that this is not a chalani report and the impugned order is a cyclostyled/typed one. Simply a date has been filled up in the order dated 6.8.2011. 7 All. Amar Singh Vs State Of U.P. 993 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., 1991 JIC 333 and also a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, decided on 4.11.1997. 5. I have perused the record which clearly shows that a complaint was filed by Sri Chandrakant Bajpayee, Food Inspector, District Jhansi and a report was submitted by the Public Analyst U.P. Lucknow in which it has been categorically mentioned that "the sample contains less amount of milk Fat and more amount of other edible fat. Manufacturer has declared as it is not Ghee & tastier than Deshi Ghee, which is violation of Rule 37-D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Hence the sample is misbranded." The complaint has been filed by the Food Inspector, District Jhansi before the learned Magistrate which has been registered and after considering the material available on record, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the accused Naresh has been summoned by the court concerned through summons. 6. Moreover, the accused-revisionist has been summoned through summons and the case is at the stage of appearance of the accused persons. The order sheet dated 21.9.2011 of the concerned Magistrate reveals that the bail application of the accused Naresh has been allowed. 7. So far as the non-application of judicial mind by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Jhansi is concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance upon the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and passed the impugned order after applying complete judicial mind. 8. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the revisionist are based on different facts and do not apply in the present case. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order 6.8.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from no illegality or infirmity. No interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. The revision sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ----------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 4922 Of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No.- 5089 Of 2006 Amar Singh ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent