MAHABIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHABIR has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge and the proceedings pending against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, in complaint case "State v. Mahabir" under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the petition are that on 28th June, 1983, Shri I.N. Sehgal, Food Inspector, Assandh found the petitioner in possession of five tins of Vanaspati, 'Kishan Mark' Sangrur. He purchased two samples of Vanaspati for analysis from different tins. The samples were got analysed and were found to be adulterated as per report of the Public Analyst. A complaint was then filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. The trial Court proceeded to try the case by following warrant procedure ignoring the provisions of Section 16(A) of the Act which required the trial of the offence to be held in a summary manner unless it was considered necessary to try the case as warrant case. On 29th February, 1988, the trial Court found that the earlier trial stood vitiated and then a fresh order was passed whereby after expressing opinion that on conviction, the petitioner could be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for more than one year, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, decided to proceed against the petitioner by following the procedure laid down for a warrant case. The case was adjourned for pre-charge evidence and after recording that evidence, the petitioner was charged for an offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act on 24.8.1988.

(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent, it was contended that the petitioner himself prolonged the trial. He first evaded the service of summons and then he absented himself from the Court on various hearings. The Vanaspati sample which was taken from his possession was found adulterated and it also contained "Beef Fat". No prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by adopting the procedure of warrant case.