RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A neat question of law arises for determination in this revision. In a summary trial the trial Judicial Magistrate Harriya convicted Ram Lakhan and Ram Chandra under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced them to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50))/- each. In appeal Ram Lakhan was acquitted. The conviction of Ram Chandra was upheld, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him was set aside. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Hence this revision by Ram Chandra.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has submitted that the summary trial of the applicant for the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was illegal and his conviction is liable to be quashed The offence in the instant case is alleged to have been committed on 29th November, 1975, and the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 23rd March, 1976. The Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, No. 34 of 1976 was published in the Gazette Extraordinary on 17th February, 1976, and became operative from 1-4-1976. If the date of the commission of the offence is taken to be the relevant date which would guide the procedure to be followed for the trial of the accused, then there can be no doubt that the summary procedure of trial, which has been prescribed by Section 16 (A) of the Act, inserted or added by Act 34 of 1976, would not be applicable and the applicant would in law be entitled to stand his trial under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing a summons case or warrants case depending upon the nature of the offence.

(3.) ASSUMING for purposes of argument that the Act as amended in 1976 was applicable, we have to consider the effect of Section 16 (A) which has been newly introduced and which runs as follows :-