PIARE LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No. 897 of 1985 has been filed by the convicted accused petitioner Piare Lal for reversal of the impugned judgment dated 24th/25th April, 1985 of the learned trial Court and the appellate judgment dated 12th July, 1985 affirming it on the grounds that the sample obtained from the petitioner was of skimmed milk and that the procedure prescribed for the trial of summary cases was not followed.

(2.) The plea in regard to the sample obtained being of skimmed milk was negatived by the learned two Courts below and has, therefore, not been adverted to before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Regarding the second point it must be said that this Court has repeatedly held in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana,1985 CLT 372, Brij Lal v. The State of Haryana and Mahabir Parshad v. The State of Haryana,1989 CLT 21. "From the above, it is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under Section 16(1) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrates, unless such a Magistrate in writing opines that the accused deserved greater dose of sentence and so he be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Criminal P.C. But the Judicial Magistrates can hold summary trial only if they are specially so empowered. So, unless they are specially so empowered the question of their holding summary trial would not arise. However, once the Judicial Magistrates are specially so empowered, then they cannot discriminate between one case and the other; they shall have to try every offence under Section 16(1) in the first instance in a summary way and if a given offence is such that the offender requires to be awarded greater sentence than could be awarded as a result of summary trial, then in that case after passing such an order in wiring, would be entitled to try such offenders in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code for the given offence."