LAWS(P&H)-1992-8-97

PREM NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 07, 1992
PREM NATH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Nath petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on the charge punishable for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the pervention of Food Adulteration Act, having kept for sale adulterated turmeric powder and was awarded some sentence. Prem Nath then went in appeal, which was partly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 16.1.87 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for re-recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for putting him the extent of adulteration in the turmeric powder as per report of the Public Analyst. Feeling aggrieved against the later order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE only controversy involved in this revision petition is whether the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani remanding the case was justifiable under the circumstances of the case as the petitioner had suffered agony during the pendency of the case against him and the appeal a little less than six years.

(3.) THE perusal of the trial Court judgment reveals that the sample of turmeric powder was taken on 9.3.81 and after receipt of the report of Public Analyst, the complaint was filed on 6.5.81. The trial ended in the conviction of the appellant on 8th April, 1985 and the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani disposed of the appeal on 16th January, 1987 and remanded the case to the trial Court. Thus it can be well said that the petitioner had faced harassment and agony during the pendency of the trial against him for about six years and eight months. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD referred in the trial Court judgment reveals that the total ash in the sample was found to be 28.42% against the maximum prescribed standard of 9% and it also contained 20% edible common salt. No doubt, the adulteration of the turmeric powder is on heavier side yet all the same, keeping in view that right to expeditious trial flows from the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, the above-referred circumstance pales into insignificance.