RAM NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Section 7 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence mentioned above. He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who vide his impugned judgment dated February 20, 1988 found that certain questions regarding incriminating evidence were not put to the petitioner and he also held that the petitioner was prejudiced by not giving an opportunity to explain his position. He, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate and remanded the case back to him for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in this revision petition is that instead of remanding the case, the petitioner should have been acquitted.

(3.) THE petitioner has relied on some reported judgments. In the case of Vijay Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 51 which is a judgment for the offence under the Act, it was held by this Court that there was a contention that during the course of examination of the petitioner of that case result of chemical analysis of the salt was not put to him and that caused grave prejudice to him and it has also been considered that the petitioner of that case has undergone the agony of prosecution at the trial stage as well as at the appellate stage for about two and half years by then and it was not proper to order his re-trial. The judgment of both the courts below, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him under the Act, were set aside.