SHITAL PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the appellate order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) THE petitioner herein on November 26, 1982 was made to sell a sample of Boora or Desi Khand to Shri A.N. Sharma, Government Food Inspector, Sonepat (PW-1) in the presence of Dr. Baldev Dutt PW-2 and the sample was found to be adulterated on examination by the Public Analyst, but his opinion was substituted by the second opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The later opinion confirmed that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it did not conform to the standard of Boora prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prosecution was successful in proving the charge against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on June 3, 1985. His appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge was allowed and the case was remitted back for re-trial in accordance with law. For such a step, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that the offence against the petitioner was triable summarily and thus, the procedure of a warrant case adopted by the learned trial Magistrate was unwarranted in law vitiating the trial.

(3.) BOTH these cases arose under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, where after setting aside the conviction and sentence, the question of remanding the case back for fresh trial had cropped up. The time-lag tilted the balance in favour of the accused. In this case, as observed before, the sample was taken on November 26, 1982 and today in the year 1989, the matter is still pending. The trial was earlier concluded by conviction and sentence on June 3, 1985 and the appeal of the petitioner was decided on July 19, 1988, whereafter the petitioner had to approach this Court in revision and have the proceedings before the trial Court stayed. In this situation, the petitioner has had enough and he has sufficiently been harassed. It will not be in the interest of justice to put him to trial. I would rather acquit him instead.