Food Inspector Vs. Ch. Qadir Wani - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- .....charge was stated to him. he had denied the allegations and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence in support of the complaint.3. from the perusal of the records, it transpires that the complainant did not produce any evidence in support of his complaint and instead absented himself from the prosecution of the case. records further reveal that on 14-10-1986, complainant was not present and even on the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 24-11-1986, parawkar did not present himself nor did he produce any evidence. learned magistrate had dismissed the case for want of prosecution only, though he was within his bounds in case he would have dismissed the case for want of proof also and for non-production of evidence.4. the complaint no doubt has been filed by the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

A.B. Qadir Parray, J.

1. From the persual of this file, it transpires that this revision was filed by the State against the order of Judicial Magistrate, 1st. Class, Chadoora in file No. 65 captioned Food Inspector versus Ghulam Qadir Wani.

2. Complaint against the accused/non-applicant Ghulam Qadir Wani was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chadoora under the provisions of Section 16(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for conducting business of food stuffs without renewal of his licence for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86. After the complaint was filed/presented before the court below, accused had appeared. Charge was stated to him. He had denied the allegations and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence in support of the complaint.

3. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the complainant did not produce any evidence in support of his complaint and instead absented himself from the prosecution of the case. Records further reveal that on 14-10-1986, complainant was not present and even on the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 24-11-1986, Parawkar did not present himself nor did he produce any evidence. Learned Magistrate had dismissed the case for want of prosecution only, though he was within his bounds in case he would have dismissed the case for want of proof also and for non-production of evidence.

4. The complaint no doubt has been filed by the State through Food Inspector, but it does not mean that he will not follow the procedure and law laid down in this behalf particularly in summons cases. Complainant was supposed to be present and adduce evidence in support of his contentions raised in the complaint which he did not do. So the order of dismissal of complaint by the learned Magistrate for want of prosecution is in no way illegal or does not suffer on any count which requires interference of this revisional court.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is dismissed. Let the records be sent back to the trial court. File be consigned to records.