MULAKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri on 1.2.1984. It has been alleged that on 20.5.1980 the petitioner was found in possession of 30 Kilograms of cow's milk for public sale. It was in a drum. The Food Inspector demanded a sample after giving a notice under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. The milk was purchased for Rs. 7/ - and after completing the necessary formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who in his report opined that milk was deficient in milk solids not fat. It was alleged that petitioner had committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act.

(2.) IT is not being disputed that the petitioner was summoned as an accused and appeared before the Court. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate adopted the procedure of trial prescribed for warrant cases and concluded the pre -charge evidence on 4.1.1986. The charges were framed for the trial of the petitioner. After the charge was framed, the evidence against the petitioner was closed. On 20.3.1987 the case was listed for recording the evidence of the petitioner. At that stage additional evidence was permitted and when the case was at the stage of conclusion, the learned Judicial Magistrate decided to convert the trial from procedure prescribed for warrant case to that of the procedure prescribed for summons case. The summons were again issued for prosecution evidence after notice to the petitioner. The entire evidence was recorded and the case was adjourned for final arguments. On 21.3.1996 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking note of completion of the trial, again passed an order which reads : - "Today the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Perusal of the file shows that proceedings in this case are being conducted in a summary trial manner. I am of the view that the nature of offence alleged against the accused is such that if convicted accused can be sentenced for Rigorous Imprisonment for one year or more and as such I would like to try this case in warrant trial manner. Now case to come up on 4.4.1996 for pre -charge evidence of the complainant, witnesses be summoned for the date fixed." Subsequently, the pre -charge evidence was recorded and charge was again framed on 4.4.1996.

(3.) BY virtue of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint Annexure P -1 and the subsequent proceedings thereto.