RAMESH PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramesh Prasad and another, petitioners seek quashing of the complaint Annexure P-l and the consequent proceedings, including show cause notice issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala for an offence under Sec. 16(1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the flour mill, while petitioner No. 1 is the accountant. On 20/10/86 at 7.30 p.m., Govt. Food Inspector carried out inspection and took sample of the flour. The Public Analyst gave a report to the following effect:

(3.) It is not disputed at the bar that in the State of Haryana, it is mandatory to try offences under the Act as summary cases. If the Court feels that adequate punishment cannot be awarded in a summary trial, then it is open to it to start a warrant trial by passing a speaking order. In the present case, however, the Magistrate straight-ray started the case, as a warrant trial and even framed charges. At a later stage, however the Magistrate found that he had adopted a wrong procedure and he then started fresh trial as a summary case. Once the Magistrate has adopted the procedure of a warrant trial, had no power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall that order, to wash off the charge-sheet and start retrial. Another fact to be considered in favour of the petitioners is that they have a right to a speedy trial and the case should not linger on for pears and they should not be made to suffer the agony of a protracted trial. The complaint was filed in the Court on 26-11-86 and thereafter, evidence was recorded and charge was tamed on 17-4-87. For another two years, the proceedings continued as a warrant trial ad then the Magistrate started summary trial of the case. It was only due to misinterpretation of law by the Magistrate who framed the charge that the difficulty arose, but then tie petitioners should not suffer for this fault of the Magistrate.