DARSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated Sept. 27, 1989 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to under go two month's RI by the passed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, by the judgment dated Dec. 8, 1987, and remanding the case to the trial Court for fresh trial.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that the order directing the trial Magistrate to try the accused now is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The case is more than 6 years old. It was on April 27, 1983, that Shri Chiranjilal, Food Inspector, Sri Ganganagar, took sample of Balushai from the shop of the accused. The sample was sent for chemical examination to the Public Analyst, Sri Ganganagar, who found it to be adulterated as it contained non -permitted colour. After trial the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentence the accused as aforesaid. The accused went in appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by the judgment dated Sept. 27, 1989, accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner on the ground that the trial had vitiated as there was contravention of the provisions of Section 326 Cr. PC in as much as the accused was tried by summary trial and that the learned Magistrate while recording the conviction relied on the evidence which had partly been recorded by his predecessor. This, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was not permitted Under Section 326 Cr. PC.

(3.) IN my opinion, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel to the petitioner. The accused is facing trial since 1983. The offence took place as back as April 7,1983. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the delay of 6 years I am of the view that it would not be just and fair to the accused to require him to meet the charges now after a period of 6 years from the date of the incidence. The fact that the accused has remained under prosecution for such a long time is itself a punishment.