LAWS(P&H)-1995-3-136

SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 24, 1995
SURESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional application against order dated 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 6.2.1992 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THE facts relevant to the present case are that on 26.12.1988 accused Suresh Kumar (petitioner herein) was apprehended by Himat Singh, G.F.I. in the presence of Dr. P.L. Verma and one Ghansham Dass while the former was carrying two drums each containing 20 Kgs. of milk purchased the sample for analysis, put it into three clean and dry bottles as required under the law. As per report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated as it was deficient in milk solids not fact by 3.5%.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law on the ground that the learned Magistrate had committed an error in not following the procedure of summary trial as is required under the law. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused about his desire to be tried his case as a warrant case, but the learned Magistrate himself did not apply his mind as required under Section 16(A) of the P.F. Act. Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the trial was vitiated. In coming to his conclusion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon some authorities, viz. Sikander v. State of Haryana, 1991 Criminal Law Times, page 531 and Deepak Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent CR 92. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law and the accused was directed to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings.