STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the order dated December 18, 1990 vide which the respondent-Subhash Chand was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent was summoned to stand trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) on the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector. The case against the respondent is that on February 09, 1984, complainant-Food Inspector visited his shop and he was found in possession of 12 kg. of unindicated milk. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of milk against payment. The milk so purchased was put in three bottles and after complying with the formalities, one bottle/sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana at Chandigarh for its analysis. The remaining two samples were kept as per rules. On receipt of the Public Analyst's report, it was fund that the sample was adulterated and there was deficiency of 9 per cent milk solids not fat. The trial Court proceeded with the trial as a warrant case. When the trial was going on, the trial Magistrate found that wrong procedure had been adopted, inasmuch as, the charge was framed against the respondent twice and evidence was accordingly recorded in a very wrong manner. After taking note of the wrong procedure adopted, the respondent was acquitted vide order dated December 18, 1990 which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the reasoning given by the trial Court is perfectly justified. Due to wrong procedure, trial continued for about six years and is this way, prejudice had definitely been caused to the respondent and he was rightly acquitted by the trial Court. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed being without any merit.