Kailash Chandra Joshi, J. - (1.) THIS cri.misc. petition has been filed by two Petitioners V.P. Rao and A.K. Haldar, against the order dated 23.04.2005 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in criminal revision No. 12/2004, by which the learned District & Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 02.08.2004 passed by the learned trial court in Criminal case No. 367/1993 State v. Nanad Kumar and Ors.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this criminal misc. petition are that on 29.04.1992 Food Inspector, Jaisalmer inspected the commercial premises of Manoj Kumar and took sample of mustard oil and upon analysis the sample was found to be adulterated and a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as 'th Act') was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer on 23.02.1993. The complaint was field against Manoj Kumar, M/s Hari Om Co. and its partners Shri Bhanwar Lal, ShriJawahar Lal and Shri Krishnan. The complaint did not contain any allegation against the Petitioners and no reference was made in the complaint regarding the present Petitioners. Thereafter, on 31.12.1997, after almost six years, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on an application filed by the distributor alleging that the said oil was manufactured by ITC Agro Tech Ltd., 100 Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur, ordered to take cognizance of the offence under Section 7/16 of the act and directed the accused to be summoned. By the order of this Court dated 24.07.2000 cognizance taken against the Directors of ITC Agro Tech Ltd. was set aside and thereafter vide order dated 23.07.2001 the cognizance against the present Petitioners was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the charges were framed under Section 7/16 of the Act on 02.08.2004. Aa revision petition was filed by the Petitioners against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer which was rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, vide order dated 23.04.2005. Being aggrieved by both these orders, this cri. misc. Petition has been filed, with the prayer to set aside the order dated 02.08.2004.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contended that the order of framing of charge, which was affirmed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, is absolutely nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the law. He, further contended that the learned trial court erred in framing the charges against the present Petitioners.;