RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sample of cow's milk was taken by the Food Inspector on 23.4.1988 from the petitioner. On analysis by the public analyst, it was found to be below the prescribed standards. A second sample sent to the Laboratory gave an almost similar result. A complaint (Annexure P-2) dated 15.6.1988 was thereafter filed against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and the petitioner was summoned to stand trial by way of summary proceedings. Two notices (Annexures P-4 and P-5) were thereafter served on the petitioner directing that he be tried for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The matter continued to drift for some time but vide order (Annexure P-6) dated 6.8.1993, the trial Magistrate directed that as the offence could result in a sentence of more than one year, it was proper that the case should be tried as a warrant case. The petitioner was accordingly charged for the aforesaid offence vide order (Annexure P-7) dated 20.8.1993. The present petition has been filed for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-2), order dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 20.8.1993 (Annexure P-7) primarily on the ground that as the proceedings had been continuing for almost 5 years 9 months, the order (Annexure P-6) dated 6.8.1993 changing the procedure from a summary to a warrant case was wholly uncalled for.

(2.) THIS petition came up for motion hearing before this Court on 8.3.1994 on which date the notice of the petition was issued and the further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. The stay order continues to operate as of today.

(3.) THE facts stated above had not been denied in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner had suffered prosecution from 1988 to 1993 in summary proceedings when all of a sudden, the trial Magistrate thought it proper that the procedure envisaged for the trial of a warrant case should be adopted. Moreover, the proceedings have remained stayed for almost 8 years in this case. The petitioner has undergone great hardship for almost fourteen years now. No further punishment is called for.