ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sample of 'Sarson oil obtained from the shop of the petitioner in Bichla Bazar, Bhiwani, at 1.40 p.m. on 9th Dec., 1987 was found to be adulterated. Consequently complaint annexure P.I was against the petitioner in the criminal Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani on 4th Feb., 1988. Charge under section 16(l)(a)(i) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was framed against the petitioner therein by the learned trial court on 9th June, 1988. The complaint case is being tried following the warrant case procedure. Petitioner has filed Criminal Misc No. l0628-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 three years by now and should, therefore, be quashed.

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

(3.) This court has repeatedly held in Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1985 CLT 372: 1984(2) FAC 179, Brij Pal Vs. The State of Haryana, 1989(1) FAC 254: 1989(1) CLR 568 and Mahabir Prashad Vs. The State of Haryana, 1989 CC Cases (HC) 1:1989(1) FAC 282 "From the above, it is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under section 16(l) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrate,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 Cr. 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 S. 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 entitled to try such offender in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code for the given offence."