SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dated 12.1.1987, whereby he while upsetting the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on the ground that the contents of the report Exhibit PD were not specifically put to him and it had essentially prejudiced him, has remanded the case for re -trial. Mr. Balhara learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner has already undergone this agony of trial for about 6 -1/2 years by now and he should not have been made to undergo it further through this order of remand. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted because of the above -noted flaw in the prosecution case and for that he relies on Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Om Parkash, 1969 PLR 793 and Mungal Dass v. The State of Haryana, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 32 : 1986(II) FAC 161. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary that there are some judgments wherein such a remand order has been upheld. He cites Brij Mohan v. State of Haryana, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 55 : 1986(II) FAC 273 and Uma Sankar Tiwari v. The State of Assam, 1986(II) FAC 380. I however find that in none of these two judgments the above -noted aspect of the case i.e. whether the remand is justified after such a long delay, as in the instant case, was considered.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in the stand of Mr. Balhara. While setting aside the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dated 12.1.1987, I acquit the accused of the charge levelled against him. Order accordingly.