JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS sample of cow's milk collected by the Government Food Inspector from the petitioner at Karnal around 10.00 A.M. on 15th June, 1984 was found on analysis to be adulterated. The petitioner arrayed as accused in Criminal complaint No. 24/3 of 1984 was therefore, prosecuted for it in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. The complaint was filed on 20-7-1984. Initially the case was tried as summary case. Learned trial court, however, framed the charge on 22nd August, 1988.

(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 8336-M of 1988 is that the lapse attributed to him was to be tried by following the summary procedure and that needful having not been done, proceedings are liable to be quashed and the accused to be acquitted.

(3.) THE aforesaid authority in Budh Ram's case was followed by a Single Bench in Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, and it was held that the trial held as a warrant case was not in accordance with law. 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, nor any such order was passed in writing. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of the trial 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.