(1) CRI. WP1021.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1021 OF 2010 Santosh S/o Eknathsingh Pardeshi Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Respondent ..... Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 13TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order rendered by the Sessions Court, whereby the closure of Criminal case bearing R.C.C. no.317 of 2001 filed against the petitioner for commission of offences under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside. 2. It appears that the learned Magistrate closed the proceedings under section 258 of the Cr.P.C. and acquitted the petitioner because though (2) CRI. WP1021.2010 summons were issued to the complainant yet it could not be served. The learned Magistrate held that since the complaint case was old one, the proceedings could be stopped under section 258 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, the order to stop the proceedings was rendered on 9.6.2008. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the Sessions Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 9.6.2008 and remanded the matter to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner challenges the order dated 7.8.2010 rendered in the revisional jurisdiction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, on the ground that the Revision was not competent and that the revisional Court ought not to have interferred in the order when the complainant had not taken due steps to prosecute the complaint case. 4. I am not convinced with the argument of learned Advocate. First, the order dated 9.6.2008 does not specifically say that the petitioner came to be acquitted on merits and it was only the result (3) CRI. WP1021.2010 of the stoppage of the proceedings under section 258 of the Cr.P.C. Perusal of section 258 of the Cr.P.C. would make it amply clear that it has no nexus with the private complaint cases. The Criminal case was not of summary nature. The Criminal case was instituted on the complaint filed by the Food Inspector. The proceedings could not be stopped under section 258 of the Cr.P.C. because that was not a summons case instituted by the State and was to be treated as a private complaint case. Moreover, the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate do not show that proper efforts were made to serve the summons on the complainant. The acquittal for serious offences under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act could not have been ordered in such a half-hazardous manner. The learned Sessions Judge could have interferred when the order of stopping the proceedings under section 258 of the Cr.P.C. was found to be perverse. The revisional remedy is available when the perverse orders are sought to be rectified and even in absence of the learned A.P.P., such error could be rectified by the revisional Court. (4) CRI. WP1021.2010 5. Under these circumstances, the Petition is destitute of merits and is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp