RAJINDER PRASHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to orders dated 21st of Feb., 1990, Annexure P-1, and dated 2nd of Jan., 1991, Annexures P-2 and P-3 as also the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

(2.) It is pleaded that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, ordered the trial of the case as warrant case on 25th of Nov., 1985. All of a sudden on 21st of Feb., 1990, the trial court realised that it had been following the wrong procedure contrary to the provisions of the Act. A fresh notice was then served upon the petitioner and the trial court ordered that the case be tried as summary case. Copy of the order dated 2nd of Jan., 1991, has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is further pleaded that the prosecution case did not progress any further till 2nd of Jan., 1991. The prosecution moved another application for amending the notice dated 21st of Feb., 1990, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate and the petitioner was served with fresh notice on 2nd on Jan., 1991. Copies of these orders have been placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the last six years when the impugned order came to be passed and the Act provides that offence under section 7 and 16 of the Act has to be tried as a summary case in the first instance and if the trial court at a later stage comes to a conclusion that the case has to be decided as a warrant case, it can do so after issuing notice to the party and after affording them an opportunity. It has to record the reasons in writing as to why the warrant case procedure was followed in the first instance without giving any notice to the parties and after five years it realised that a wrong procedure has been followed and ordered fresh trial of the case as a summary case. The counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Satya Pal Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh 1995(2) Recent CR 110. There is no need to go into any further details of the case as it could not be disputed by the learned counsel representing the respondents that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Satya Pal's case (supra).