RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration ACt, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, who sentenced him to undergo R.I for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 15 days. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence both of September 15, 1988, were challenged in appeal by the convict Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his order of February 21, 1989 accepted the appeal, quashed the conviction and order of sentence, and remanded the case for re trial to the court below. The said order in appeal has been impugned before this Court in this criminal revision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case had to be tried summarily but it was tried as a warrant case and the petitioner had already undergone harassment for a period of about 6 years for no fault of his and therefore, deserved to be acquitted instead of having a fresh trial.

(3.) SECTION 16-A was introduced by the Amending Act 34. It had come into force with effect from April 1, 1976. The Government of Haryana issued Notification No. 4201-4 HBII-77/32799 on October 20, 1977 giving summary powers to the Judicial Magistrates for the purpose of said section to try all offences under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act with the result that trials after 20th June, 1976 were to be held in a summary manner. The present trial was held as a warrant case which was not in accordance with law. It is evident from the provisions of Section 16-A that a speedy trial if of utmost importance to an accused person and it is not open to the court to order a fresh trial and the only course open to it is to record a finding of acquittal. This case is fully covered by the following judgments :-