Mohd Shafiq Amrohi vs State of U.P.

S.R. Bhargava, J.

This revision against summoning order in a complaint case is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Revisionist Mohammad Shafiq Amrohi is a dealer of Catechu (Katia). Opposite party No. 2 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahtiranpur has filed criminal complaint against him due to omission to collect and pay market fee Kattha. On behalf of the revisionist reliance has been placed on the case of Ram Chandra Kaitash Kumar and Company v. State of U.P. (1) Their Lordships observed "if catechu is a product of khar trees by some processing as prima facie it appears to us to be so then it is plain that market fee can be charged only on the purchase of Khar wood and not on the sale of Catechu,"

If market fee is not payable on sale of Catechu Prosecution of tie Revisionist is not maintainable Revisionist himself can appear before the Magistrate and claim discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr. P.C, at any stage and even before recording of evidence. When the revisionist can have more convenient remedy in his home town) I do not think it proper to interfere in the revision and keep the same pending fur indefinite time.

Hence at this very stage, | finally dispose of the revision with the direction that revisionist may appear before the Magistrate concerned. On his appearance Magistrate will require him only to furnish bond with or without sureties as laid down in Section 88, Cr. P.C. for his attendant on future dates. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of any discharge application moved by the revisionist (as observed above) within three months.

A certified copy of the order be issued to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.

Dismissed