PEHLAD RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 30.11.1987 the Government Food Inspector, Hissar, second -respondent herein inspected the premises of the petitioner and took sample of turmeric (Haldi) powder which on analysis by the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, was found to have been adulterated. Therefore, a complaint (Annexure P -1) was filed against the petitioner under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on 25.2.1988 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. Originally, the case was fixed for 7.4.1988 for trial under warrant procedure for letting in pre -charge evidence. It was being adjourned from time to time. On 9.2.1989 the trial Court ordered the case be tried under summary procedure, and the case was being adjourned. Once again on 23.3.1989 the trial Court decided that this case should be tried by adopting the warrant procedure. On 15.3.1990 charges were framed, and then amended on 23.2.1994. After trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine by his judgment dated 5.8.1994. As against this, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar (Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 1994). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the appeal, by his judgment dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure P -3) found that the trial Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 16 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and, therefore, set aside the conviction and the order of sentence and remitted the case back to the trial Magistrate, directing him to proceed with the trial in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 16 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE petitioner has, therefore, come forward with this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint annexure P -1 dated 25.2.1988 and the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar.

(3.) THE only contention that is put forward by the petitioner is that the sample was taken on 30.11.1987 and since then the petitioner has been undergoing this agony for the last more than nine years during which time the procedure for trial was changed from warrant procedure to summary procedure and then again to warrant procedure. He further contends that he was convicted and in appeal the conviction was set aside, since the Appellate Court found that the trial Court had not complied with the provisions of Section 16 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner contends that his right to have a speedy trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and that he has also been prejudiced in view of the fact that the prosecution will fill up all the lacunae, which the prosecution had left already during the trial of the case.