MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAMPLE of wheat flour obtained by Food Inspector from the shop of petitioner Mohan Lal situated near Railway Station, Loharu in Bhiwani district of Haryana State around 11-15 A.M. on 5th November, 1985 did not conform to the prescribed standard and was also found to be insect-infested. Consequently a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani oil 8th January, 1986. Charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was framed against the petitioner therein by the learned trial court on 17th September, 1986. The complaint case is being tried following the warrant case procedure. Petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. No. 10594-M of 1990 for quashing the complaint and the charge on the ground that summary procedure prescribed for such like cases having not been followed, the petitioner, has unnecessarily suffered the agony of protracted trial for nearly five years by now and should, therefore, be quashed.

(2.) I have heard Shri Mani Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Surinder Lamba, Advocate for the State and have carefully, gone through the complaint and the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned trial court.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , in the present case the trial Magistrate neither applied his mind that greater sentence was to be awarded to the offender, than could be awarded as it result of summary procedure, nor, any such order was passed in writing. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of the trial Magistrate to try the accused summarily, and follow appropriate procedure in that regard. Thus, in the instant case, the trial, which was held as a warrant case, was not in accordance with law.