SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in revision here is to the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and remanding the case for fresh decision from the stage of the recording of the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) A reference to the record would show that the case against the petitioner is that on August 23, 1977, a sample of powdered haldi was purchased from him by the Food Inspector, which on analysis, was found to be adulterated inasmuch as it contained eight dead weevils, eight dead worms, and rice husk and rice starch along with insoluble ash beyond the permissible limit. It is with respect to this matter that the petitioner was sent up for trial which culminated in his conviction and sentence. On appeal, however, it was found that the report of the Public Analyst, exhibit PE, had not been put to the petitioner when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was to rectify this error that the case was remanded to the trial Magistrate for fresh trial from the state of the recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) IT will be seen that the petitioner had hanging over him this prosecution since 1977 when the sample was taken from him. The complaint against the petitioner was put in Court in November, 1979 and it was in February 1984 that he was convicted by the trial Magistrate and the impugned order is of July, 1985. Considering the expenses, strain and harassment that the petitioner must undoubtedly have undergone, on account of the long pendency of the trial against him, interest of justice render it imperative that the proceedings against the petitioner now be brought to an end. The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, remanding the case for fresh trial is accordingly hereby set aside and the petitioner shall stand acquitted of the offence charged. Fine if paid, is ordered to be refunded to him.