MANGE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sample of milk obtained by Government Food Inspector from the petitioner Mange on 22nd June. 1983 was found deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of 9 per cent below the minimum prescribed standard and, therefore; adulterated. On prosecution for it learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sonepat, vide judgment dated 23rd April, 1988 convicted accused-petitioner of the commission of offences under Sections 7 and 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs. 1,000.00 as fine. In default of payment of fine, accused-petitioner was ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(2.) Vide appellate judgment dated 16th April, 1990 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1988 learned Sessions Judge, sonepat held that summary procedure having not been followed by the learned Trial Court, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court was vitiated. Accordingly the case was remitted back to the learned Trial Court for fresh decision according to law; after following summary procedure within four months from the date of remand. Against the order of remand accused petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 341 of 1990 in this Court urging that on account of his having undergone the agony of prosecution for over seven years by now learned appellate court ought to have ordered his acquittal instead of remanding back the case to learned Trial Court.

(3.) This Court has repeatedly held in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana, Brij Pal v. The State of Haryana, and Mahabir Parshad v. The State of Haryana, From the above, it is quite clear that, sc the Legislature intended that all offences under 5. 16(1) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrates unless such a Magistrate in writing opines that the accused deserved greater does 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 airiest. However, once the Judicial Magistrates arc specially so empowered, then they cannot discriminate between one case and the other; they shall have tray every offence under 5. 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 writing, would be equated to try such offenders in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code for the given offence.