RAM BHAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried for aim offened under section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. By order dated 21.5.1988 he was convicted and sentenced to RI for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, he was further sentenced to RI for one mouth. He preferred an appeal. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by order dated 11-1-1989. It was held that the requirement to try the petitioner in a summary way was mandatory, whereas he was 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 to 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.) THERE are no significant features in this case justifying a different view.