1. Present application has been filed invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. challenging the order of issuance of process against the present applicant in S. C. C. NO. 942/2013 by Judicial Magistarate First Class, Parali, Dist. Beed and to challenge the Judgment and order of rejection of Criminal Revision No. 24/2014 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai on 14.10.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 18(1), 36(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 6(1)(2) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011.

2. Respondent No. 2 has filed complaint bearing S. C. C. No. 942/2013 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali. It was contended that the present applicant / original accused has committed offence punishable under Section 18(1), 36(1) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rule 6(1)(2) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011. After the presentation of the complaint, order of issuance of process was not passed by the learned Magistrate. But, notice was issued to the accused for appearance and therefore, said fact was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai by way of criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr. P. C. It was specifically contended in the revision that verification of the complainant has not been taken nor order of enquiry under Section 202 of Cr. P. C. was passed by the learned Magistrate. The procedure that was adopted by the learned Magistrate was wrong and therefore, the request was made to interfere. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai after hearing both sides dismissed the revision. It will not be out of place to mention here that the prosecution had contended before the revisional Court that the procedure that is adopted by the learned Magistrate was legal and proper.

2.1 In the present application, the applicant original accused has contended that the learned Magistrate has not passed any specific order of issuance of process, yet. On the basis of the Roznama it can be seen that the notice was directed to be issued to the accused and accordingly, the notice was issued. Thereafter, the matter was kept for the appearance of accused before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate failed to consider that the address of the accused was clearly indicating that the accused was not residing within the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate and therefore, mandatory part of the provision under Section 202 of Cr. P. C. ought to have been complied with before issuing the process under Section 204 of Cr. P. C. It is also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge went wrong in holding that whatever procedure has been adopted by the learned Magistrate is correct and he has taken cognizance of the matter.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. S. Ghanekar for the applicant / original accused and learned A.P.P. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale for the State. The learned Advocate for the applicant has reiterated the grounds those have been mentioned in the application. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that specific order was not passed by the learned Magistrate by taking cognizance and there is no question of setting aside any such order. Whatever procedure was adopted by the learned Magistrate was correct.

4. It is to be noted that the said complaint was filed by Food, Supplies and Consumer Protection Department (Legal Metrology Organization of the Govt. of Maharashtra). The complainant therein was serving as an Inspector and during the course of his duty when he found that certain rules have not been followed, he had presented that complaint. On the presentation of the complaint, an endorsement has been taken by the learned Magistrate that the complaint was presented by the complainant who is Inspector, Legal Metrology (W & M) ParaliVaijnath, Dist. Beed ought to have registered as summary criminal case. Thereafter, it appears that no order was passed on the complaint. However, copy of Roznama shows that dire