SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sham Lal, Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of 1973 for quashing the complaint and the order of the trial Court framing charge for offences under Section 16(1)(c) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, inter alia, on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 16-A of the Act at a belated stage to the effect that the case should be tried as a warrant case as adequate punishment cannot be awarded in a summary trial. It is further maintained that the pendency of the trial for a number of years had resulted in negating the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) The brief resume of facts figuring in complaint Annexure P. 1, relevant for the disposal of this petition is that on 16th May, 1984, at about 11.30 a.m. Shri Inder Nath Sehgal, Food Inspector! Assandh, along with Dr. Balbir Singh Chaudhry, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Karnal went to the shop of Sham Lal, Petitioner. The Petitioner had kept 80 Kgs. of Haldi powder for sale at his business premises. The Food Inspector then disclosed his identity and asked the accused-Petitioner to give sample of the Haldi but the latter refused saying that he had already been implicated in another case under the Food Adulteration Act although the adulteration was done by the Company. On hearing the commotion, Madan Lal and Piare Lal, witnesses also arrived there. They tried to make the accused understand that he will not be falsely implicated but the sample will be got analysed from the laboratory and thereafter if it is found to be adulterated, only then he will be prosecuted. The accused is then stated to have lost his temper and pushed out the Food Inspector from the verandah of the shop and pulled down its shutters. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 18th May, 1984.

(3.) The trial Court framed the charge for the above-referred offences against the accused on 7th October, 1985. Thereafter, on 14th March, 1988, the trial Court having become aware of the illegality in trying this case as a warrant case although it was required to be tried in a summary manner as per provisions of Section 16-A of the Act, then passed the order to the effect that it should be tried as a warrant case as in the trial of the case in a summary manner, adequate punishment cannot be awarded for the above-referred offences. The trial Court then reframed the charge on 26th September, 1988 and directed that the evidence of the witnesses be recorded.