Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 112724 (ALL)

RAJ PRAKASH @ NEERAJ v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

A227/16071/2024 · 2025-02-13

Saurabh Srivastava

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20481 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16071 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raj Prakash @ Neeraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.5.2024 passed by Session Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal no. 135 of 2023 (Raj Prakash alias Neeraj vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 26.7.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 1102 of 2019, Computerized Case no. D201901260001102 (State of U.P. vs. Raj Prakash) under Section 51 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (Contained as Annexure no. to this writ petition). (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commanding directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 26.7.2023." 3. It is the case of petitioner that a complaint case no. 1102 of 2019 was filed by respondent no. 3 under section 51 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 alleging therein that substandard milk samples were found in the dairy owned by petitioner. Over the said complaint, learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Firozabad passed an order dated 26.7.2023 imposing penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 51 of the Act of 2006 and Rs.50,000/- under Section 58 of the Act of 2006 against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with order dated 26.7.2023, petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal no. 135 of 2023 under Section 392 Cr.P.C. before court concerned but the same was rejected vide order dated 1.5.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad which has been challenged through the instant petition. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that order dated 26.07.2023 has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, hence the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in spite of giving several opportunities, the same were failed to be availed by the petitioner. 6. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that order dated 26.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue) Firozabad in Case no. 1102 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Raj Prakash) in pursuance to sections 51 and 58 and Food and Safety Act, 2006 was without having any participation of the petitioner since it is the categorical statement available in the records that in spite of best effort made by learned counsel for the petitioner the dates which has been fixed in case no. 1102 of 2019 were not in the information neither to the learned counsel nor to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, order dated 1.5.2024 passed by Session Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal no. 135 of 2023 (Raj Prakash alias Neeraj vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 26.7.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Firozabad in Case No. 1102 of 2019 are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh by Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue) Firozabad/concerned authority for passing afresh order after due opportunity of hearing extended in favour of the petitioner but at the same time, it is also made clear that the specific date whatsoever has been fixed by concerned authority intimating to learned counsel for the petitioner/petitioner, on the same date, the entire arguments or the material whatsoever is necessary for defending the petitioner shall be availed and no further adjournment shall be extended by learned concerned authority. 8. The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad