Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2818 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sunil & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- D.V. Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
It has been argued by Mr. Durvijay Singh, learned counsel for the
revisionists that the impugned order is bad as in order to frame the charge
under Section 272, IPC it must be shown that the food or drink item at the
relevant time was not only adulterated but it was so adulterated that it was
obnoxious and because no such report was made available at the time of
framing of the charge, therefore, the charge could not have been framed under
Section 272, IPC.
State to file counter affidavit within 2 weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be
filed within 1 week thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till then, further proceedings of S.T. No.85 of 2010, under Section 227,
Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2010
T. Sinha