SATYAWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the charge under Section 16(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred, to as 'the Act') framed against the petitioner and the resultant proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) THE Government Food Inspector filled a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, on 25.7.1984 alleging that on 9.8.1984, he (Government Food Inspector) took a sample of milk from the petitioner in the area of Assandh and on its analysis by the Public Analyst, the same was found to be adulterated. According to the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, instead of following the procedure of summary trial as laid down under Section 16 -A of the Act adopted the procedure of trial of warrant case. His grievance is that the trial of the case has proceeded in the Court for more than three years and nine months and thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 14.3.1988 to the effect that the trial of the case stood vitiated for not following the summary procedure under Section 16 -A of the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that the sentence of imprisonment of more than one year can be imposed and, therefore, he ordered for The starting of the procedure of warrant case as is borne out from order, copy Annexure P -7. In pursuance of this order, a charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act was flamed against the petitioner on 1.8.1988, vide copy of charge -sheet Annexure P -2. The petitioner has assailed this charge -sheet as well as the proceedings as being illegal on the ground; (i) the provisions of Section 16 -A of the Act provide for summary trial, which are mandatory, but the procedure of warrant trial was adopted, which continued for more than three years and nine months and the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of said Section has vitiated the trial; (ii) the Magistrate had no power to quash the proceedings of the earlier trial; (iii) the sample of food article was taken on 9.6.1984 and the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the last more than three years and nine months and thus the denovo trial at this stage being untenable will prolong his agony and (iv) the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not recorded any reasons as to under what circumstances the sentence is likely to be awarded for more than one year while passing the order dated 14.3.1988, copy Annexure P -1.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the respondent, the factual averments made in the petition have not been disputed. It has, however, been urged that the Magistrate was competent to correct the procedural error in his order whereby the procedure of warrant case was adopted by the trial Court and further that the petitioner has not been subjected to any unnecessary delay in his prosecution.