ROOP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhari, who sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.5.1987 was challenged in appeal by the convict before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, who vide his order dated 23.11.1987, accepted the appeal, quashed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and remanded the case for re-trial to the Court below. This order in appeal has been impugned before this Court in this criminal revision.

(2.) I have heard Shri D.S. Bishnoi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. He had very fairly conceded that there is no provision under which, after having quashed the judgment or conviction and order of sentence, the learned Sessions Judge could remand the case back to the learned Magistrate for re-trial.

(3.) I have given a thoughtful consideration to the case in hand. Section 16-A supplied power to the Court to try cases summarily. It is evident from this provision that a speedy trial is of the 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. The case is fully covered by the following judgments:-