SUBASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Safidon who was not vested with summary powers at the relevant time. Shri Mann vehemently argued that in view of section 16A of the said Act, the petitioner ought to have been tried summarily. This argument has no force in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, reported as Budh Ram v. State of Haryana, 1985(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 510 : 1984 (II) F.A.C. 179 wherein it was remarked : 1. "From the above, it is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under section 16(1) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrates, unless such a Magistrate in writing opines that the accused do deserve greater dose of sentence and so he be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Criminal Procedure Code. But the Judicial Magistrates can hold summary trial only if they are specially seem powered the question of their holding summary trial would not arise".

(2.) THE learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner was below 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence and therefore, he should have been released on probation. This point has been discussed by the learned lower Appellate Court who did not agree with the contention of the petitioner about his age.

(3.) I have further heard the learned counsel for the partied and gone through the judgments of the learned Courts below. I do not find any infirmity in those judgments.