ASA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10726-M of 1989 complaint Annexure PI and the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court on its basis are both sought to be quashed on the grounds that the sample was obtained on 23-6-1983 and the trial has been going on for the last over five years and in terms of procedure prescribed for the trial of warrant cases instead of summary procedure envisaged in the statute.

(2.) THIS Court have had the opportunity of examining, the validity of the contentions raised earlier in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana, 1984(2) Food Adulteration Cases 179, Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Food Adulteration Cases 95, Mahavir Parshad v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) Food Adulteration Cases 282 and Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 22 and observed, "It is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under section 16(1) 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 Criminal Procedure Code".

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, Criminal Misc. aforesaid succeeds and is allowed. Complaint Annexure PI and the charge framed against the accused-petitioner by the learned trial Court are both quashed. Order accordingly.