DHARM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. By order dated 22.12.1987 he was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default, he was further sentenced to R.I. for four months. He preferred an appeal. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, by order dated 19.5.1989. On the basis of a full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 PA H 130 : 1984 (2) FAC 179 it was held that the requirement to try the petitioner in a summary way was mandatory. In fact, the petitioner had been tried according to warrant procedure. The conviction and sentence thus stood vitiated. The conviction was, therefore, set aside and the case was remanded with the direction that the petitioner should be tried afresh according to law. The said order of the Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a string of authorities of this Court to the effect that where the petitioner has had i0 face the agony of trial over a period lasting three years and above, there is no justification to remand the case for a fresh trial and the appropriate order to be passed is one of acquittal. Learned counsel has relied on the following authorities:-

(3.) The sample, in the facts of the present case, was taken on Dec. 30, 1984. The conviction was recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, on Dec. 22, 1987, and thus the petitioner has had to face a protracted criminal proceeding against him. There are no special features justifying a different view.