PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 3.10.1981. Annexure P-l. under Section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' order dated 10.12.1987, Annexure P-3 and notice dated 10.12.1987 Annexure P-4, passed by the trial court initiating de-novo trial of the petitioner under section 16-A of the Act.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is not disputed that a complaint for committing an offence under section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act was filed against the petitioner in the trial court on 3.10.1981 and cognizance of the same was taken. After pre-charge evidence charge was framed against the petitioner on 1 1.4.1986 copy Annexure P-2 and the case was pending for the last about 8 years prior to the filing of the present petition. By order dated 10.12.1987. Annexure P-3 learned Magistrate started de-novo trial considering that the procedure was wrongly followed as the provision of section 16-A of the Act was not complied with and instead it was required to be summary trial as per section 16-A of the Act which order is under challenge before this court on the ground that during the continuance of the proceedings after a lapse of about 8 years an order of de-novo trial would be nothing but abuse of the process of the court and harassment of the petitioner Besides the trial court could not review its own order and no fresh trial or de-novo trial could be ordered.