SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present revision petition Sadhu Ram has assailed the judgment dated 18.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (II) Bhiwani setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and remanding the case for fresh decision after framing the charge afresh and giving proper opportunity to the accused for cross-examining the witnesses.

(2.) The case against the petitioner was that on 27.9.1982 Shri S.P. Malik, Government Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner Sadhu Ram, situated near old bus stand, Charkhi Dadri and purchased 600 grams of Bura by way of sample on payment of Rs.3/-. The sample was divided into three equal pans and was duly sealed as per rules. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, by railway parcel on 27.2.1982. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated. On the basis of this report prosecution was launched against the petitioner vide complaint Ex. P.P. When the petitioner received notice of the prosecution, he moved application for getting the sample analyzed from Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. His prayer was allowed and the second sample was got analyzed from the Director, who too found the sample as adulterated vide his report Ex. P.G. The petitioner was thereafter tried and convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class; Charkhi Dadri.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment recording his conviction on the grounds that charge framed against him was not proper as it was framed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst dated 21.10.1982 which was superseded by the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory dated 23.12.1982. Moreover, at the time when statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, detailed date of adulteration report as observed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad was not put to him and in this way prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The case remained pending against the petitioner from 1982 till today and he had already under gone sufficient mental harassment and fresh trial after framing of the charge was not justifiable. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the case of Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana. In this case also the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court. On appeal it was found that report of the Public Analyst was not put to him when he was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. In order to rectify this error the case was remanded to the trial Magistrate for fresh trial from the stage of recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was held: It will be seen that the petitioner has had hanging over him this prosecution since 1977 when the sample was taken from him. The complaint against the petitioner was put in Court in November, 1979 and it was in February, 1984 that he was convicted by the trial Magistrate, and the impugned order is of July, 1985. Considering the expenses, strain and harassment that the petitioner must undoubtedly have undergone on account of the long pendency of the trial against him, interests of justice render it imperative that the proceedings against the petitioner be now brought to an end. The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge remanding the case for fresh trial is accordingly hereby set aside and the petitioner shall stand acquitted of the offence charged.