1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2471/2007 Vijay Ganpatrao Bompilwar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 23 rd June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Nemade, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Wasnik, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant challenges legality of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad whereby and whereunder the non applicant's revision was allowed and order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, discharging the present applicant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 7(i) r/w 2 (i-a) (a), 16 (1) (a) (ii) and section 7 (v) r/w Rule 30 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside. 3. The applicant was discharged by the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the complainant did not turn up and remained absent. However, the operative part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that 2 the applicant/accused was discharged under Section 245 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the offences mentioned above. The non applicants challenged this order by filing revision before the Sessions Court and the Additional Sessions Judge who disposed of this revision, allowed the same relying upon the decision in Criminal Application No. 382/01, (State of Maharashtra ...versus... Vijay Kumar Agrawal). The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that since the offence under the Food Adulteration Act affects the society at large, the Magistrate ought to have taken coercive measures to secure attendance of the complainant rather than to dismiss the complaint for absence of the complainant. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with on the operative part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which shows that the applicant was discharged under Section 245 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 3 though the case was fixed for evidence before charge. 4. Mr. Nemade, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in M/s. Merchant alias Somji Agro Industries and Investment (P) Ltd. ...vs... Brij Mehra and another; 2004 CRI. L. J. 1012 and also Division Bench Judgment in Agadhu Das ...vs... Baban Parida and others; 1987 CRI. L. J. 555. In both the above cases, the accused was not charged for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which is a crime against the society affecting the people at large and, therefore, the ratio cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. In view of above, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The application is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale