SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by Shri M. Athar, XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, on 28. 10.1987. The learned Judge was disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1985, which was against the Magisterial order and judgment dated 24.5 1985. Mr. Rajveer Sharma Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Agra, had convicted the applicant. Suresh Chandra Sharma under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of. Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to fix months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed this order and dismissed the appeal. We are not presently concerned with the facts of the matter on merit. What, however, is to be seen, is the fact that the case was fixed for hearing of the appeal on 27.101987. On that date as would be evident from the order sheet maintained in the court of the Sessions Judge (the original record has been obtained here and was perused by me) the accused did not appear before the learned Judge and the Judge heard the counsel for the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and reserved the judgment for being delivered the next day, i.e., 28.10.1987. On that date before the delivery of the judgment an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist Suresh Chandra Sharma through which it was brought to the notice of the court below that his counsel was ill and for that reason he had himself left the court on 27.10.1987 and even on 28.10.1987 the counsel was running temperature and was not able to conduct the case and another date may be fixed. I find on the margin of this petition an endorsement by the learned counsel for the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari which is in the following words: No objection.The order of the learned Judge is Today is the date fixed for judgment. No genuine ground. Rejected.

(2.) I feel that since the judgment had not yet been delivered by the time this application was disposed of by the learned Judge, it was preferable to have heard the counsel for the revisionist before recording his judgment. He might not have granted time and might have insisted on engaging another counselor appointed a counsel at the expenses of the State or might have even heard the appellant but it was not proper for him to have debarred the revisionist from being heard when a petition had already been moved before the delivery of judgment.

(3.) Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, I think that the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 28.10.1987 should be set aside and the case be sent back to him for hearing of the appeal on merits afresh and then for giving his judgment.