Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3493 of 2004

Revisionist :- Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Thru Its Secy.

Aligarh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Mandhyan,Suresh C.

Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Matter taken up in the revised list.

Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and

Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State are

present.

Despite service of notice to the opposite party No.2, no one

appears on his behalf.

The present revision has been preferred against the judgment

and order dated 12.05.2004 passed by Additional District Judge,

Court No.14, Aligarh allowing Criminal Revision No. 238/03

setting aside the summoning order dated 03.04.2003 of the

C.J.M., Aligarh.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the order

impugned is bad in the eyes of law in as much as Bans Bamboo

is a forest produce. It is argued that the same is included in the

Schedule 2(A) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam,

1964. It is argued that the present revision has been filed against

the judgement and order of the court below by which the order

of the trial court summoning the revisionist therein has been set

aside on the ground that Bans Bamboo is not included in the

schedule. It is argued that the same is bad in the eyes of law and

deserved to be set aside and the Opposite Party No.2 be

summoned.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the

judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Jayprakash Pramod Kumar and others vs. U.P. Raj Krishi

Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others): 2006 2 AWC 1404 AII

and argued that it has been held that Bamboo is a wood and as

such is an agricultural produce. It is argued that as such the

offence is punishable under Section 37 of the Mandi Act. It is

argued that the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel has further argued that although in the

impugned judgement and order, there is a recital that the

learned counsel for Mandi Samiti had conceded that Bans

Bamboo is not included in the schedule but the same would not

in any manner become final and proceed the position of law if

the concession is bad in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for revision

and argued that there is no irregularity and illegality in the

order.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

judgement in the case of Jayprakash Pramod Kumar and

others vs. U.P. Raj Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and

others): 2006 2 AWC 1404 AII, the judgement and order dated

03.04.2003 is set aside.

The present revision is allowed.

The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter

expeditiously as per law.

Order Date :- 24.2.2022

AS Rathore

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK

SINGH RATHOR

Date: 2022.02.25 17:10:28 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad