PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 4.9.1991, copy Annexure P-1, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, dismissing the petitioner's application for acquittal on the ground that he had been facing prolonged prosecution and also for quashing the notice dated 4.9.1991 copy Annexure P-2, served upon the petitioner under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) as 'the Act') and the entire proceedings against him.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Karyana dealer. On 25.11.1986, Mr. Ram Singh, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. O.P. Sarwal and PW Diwan Chand inspected the petitioner's shop in Gurgaon and found him in possession of about 15 packets of Mirch Kutti of 100 grams each for sale. After serving notice Exhibit PA, the Food Inspector purchased six packets of Mirch of 100 grams each against payment, for analysis. The packets were labelled, stoppered, wrapped and sealed in accordance with the rules on the spot. One sealed packet was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the other samples were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Gurgaon. The Public Analyst, after analysing the sample, vide his report Exhibit PD opined that the same contained six living weevils, three dead weevils and four living meal worms. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was filed against the petitioner for possessing adulterated Mirch.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the respondent, it has been stated that initially, the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that sentence of more than one year has to be passed. As such he had proceeded to try the case as a warrant case. It has been added that the learned trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner's application for quashing the proceedings in view of the latest Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(1) Punjab Law Reporter 361. According to the respondent, the trial Court has not committed any error in doing so and that no procedural delay has been caused in conducting the trial. It has further been added that the presence of the dead worms in the sample is tantamount to it being insect infested.