MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the appellate order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who on acceptance of the appeal of the petitioners (appellants before him) remanded the case to the learned trial Magistrate with the direction that he shall proceed in the trial from the stage of proceedings under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and re -examine the accused appellants affording them an opportunity to produce defence.

(2.) THE petitioners were found on 27 -5 -1981 by the Government Food Inspector to be selling ice candy. A sample purchased by Food Inspector when analysed by the Public Analyst revealed that it was sweetened with saccharin, which was an artificial sweetening agent, violating the prescribed standards as laid down under the rules. At the trial, when the prosecution concluded its evidence the petitioners were examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. The questions put to the petitioners did not satisfy the requirements of section 313, Cr.P.C. as laid down by this Court in Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana, 1983 FAJ 31, followed in Vijay Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports P. 51.The learned trial Magistrate all the same convicted the petitioners. As said before, their appeal was accepted and a remand ordered.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the agony of the trial against the petitioners is continuing for the last about four years, as the offence is said to have been committed on 27 -5 -1981, and such delay was taken into account in Ram Chander's case (supra) for giving a finding that case was not a remand. It is contended that in parity with the reasoning in that case the Additional Sessions Judge should not have rewarded the case for further trial. The learned counsel for the State does not deny that a period of four years is too long and even if the petitioners are convicted again that would not be the end of the matter. Having regard to the time elapsed and the facts and circumstances of the case, it was improper, as it appears to me, for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have remanded the case to the learned trial Magistrate by passing the impugned order on 21 -1 -1985. Thus, this petition is accepted, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is modified to conclude that the judgment and order of the learned trial Magistrate stand set aside acquitting the petitioners of the charge. The direction, of remand is accordingly set aside. Order accordingly.