KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has moved this Criminal Revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated January 25, 1995 wherein finding that wrong procedure has been adopted by the trial Court while convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding it in a summary manner in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that in this case milk sample was taken from the petitioner on October 15, 1983. The complaint was filed in the trial Court on November 25, 1983, and since 1984 the petitioner was continuously facing the trial. After 11 years now the case is remanded to the trial Court for a de novo trial. Relying on S.G. Nain v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 603; Baldev Krishan v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) RecentC.R. 463; Attam Parkash v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) RecentCR 558 and Machhander v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 Mr. Gill has contended that this order of de novo trial is wholly unjustified and, therefore, the order should be quashed.

(3.) IN this case, from the trial Court's record, it is evident that sample of cow milk was taken from the petitioner on October 15, 1983. On analysis it was found adulterated. The deficiency was 17.5 per cent in milk fat and 2 per cent in milk solids not fat. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girdharilal Sapuru and others, AIR 1981 S.C. 1169 the Apex Court has repelled such a plea of lapse of time and has observed :