SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Halwai and on 24-8-1983, at 6-30 p.m. Govt. Food, Inspector came to his shop which is in front of District Courts, Karnal. He was found in possession of 2-1/2 kg of Degi Lal Mirch powder, kept in a tin for sale for using the same in the preparation of Smosas etc. After giving notice Ex. PA, 600 grams of the aforesaid food purchased for Rs. 6/- vide receipt Ex. PB, after mixing the bulk of the powder lying at the shop. This quantity was divided into three equal parts sad put into three clean dry battles. One of the sample bottles was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst on completing the other formalities. The Public Analysts vide his report dated 21-9-1983 Ex. PD. found the sample adulterated. Complaint was filed and during trial the second sample was got sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad at the instance of the petitioner. The report of the Central Food Laboratory dated, 2-3-1984 also found the sample adulterated. After pre-charge evidence, the charge was framed under section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner was convicted under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced to RI of nine months and a tine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for three months vide order of the trial Court dated 29-10-1985. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal and the Court of Sessions, after hearing the same, maintained the conviction and sentence, vide its order dated 1-3-1986. This revision has been pending for more than three years.

(2.) THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in view of the latest trend of judicial pronouncements, the proceedings are liable to be quashed without going into the merits of the case. The learned counsel has cited Daya Nand v. State of Haryana, Criminal Revision No. 1029 of 1985, decided on 23-2-1989 by this Court. In that ease, the sample was taken on 31-7-1982 and the Criminal Revision came up for hearing on the above mentioned date and reference was made to an earlier case, Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (II) FAC 95 wherein period from 16-6-1983 to 22-5-1987 was considered to be sufficient for quashing the order of conviction and sentence. In Daya Nand's case (supra), the period from 31-7-1982 till 21.2 1989 was considered to be sufficient for quashing the criminal proceedings in the present case, the period involved is from 24-8-1983 to 18-8-1989, i.e., a period of almost six years and I agree with the learned counsel that it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings.