GIRDHARI LAL Vs. GOVT. FOOD INSPECTOR, SONEPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED petitioner Girdhari Lal is alleged to have prevented Government Food Inspector, Sonepat, from taking a sample of red chillies powder from his shop situated in Arya Samaj Chowk, Model Town, Sonepat, for sale on 18th February, 1982. On being prosecuted for the lapse aforesaid, learned trial court vide its judgment dated 10th October, 1987 convicted accused petitioner of the commission of the offence under section 16(1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine accused petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 4 months.

(2.) VIDE appellate judgment dated 19th May, 1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1987 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, held that summary procedure having not been followed by the learned trial court, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence delivered by it against the petitioner on 10th October, 1987 was vitiated. Accordingly the case was remanded to the learned trial court for fresh decision according to law; after following summary procedure. Against the order of remand accused petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 562 of 1989 in this Court urging that on account of his having undergone the agony of prosecution for over 8 years by now learned appellate court ought to have ordered his acquittal instead of remanding back the case to the learned trial court for fresh decision after observing summary procedure.

(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 a result of the summary procedure, not, any such order was passed in writing. It was thus, obligatory on the part of the 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.