RAMAKANT SARAF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 24. 9. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in criminal case No. 432/96 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application dated 9. 7. 2001 filed by the APP and ordered that the case be tried as warrant case and he further ordered that PW- 1 Ramgopal be summoned for further cross-examination.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances : (i) That a complaint under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) was filed in the lower court on 30. 5. 95 and on that day, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioner. IT appears that procedure of warrant trial otherwise than on a police report was adopted by the Magistrate and for that pre-charges evidence was recorded and statement of PW. 1 Ramgopal was recorded on 11. 8. 98 and thereafter the case was fixed for argument on charge. (ii) On 14. 1. 99, the learned Magistrate found the prima facie case for framing charges for offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and accused petitioner was charged accordingly. Thereafter PW. 1 Ramgopal who was examined earlier was to be cross-examined and he was cross-examined again on 7. 10. 99 by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner and one more witnesses PW. 2 was produced on behalf of the prosecution on 2. 10. 99. (iii) On 18. 5. 2001, statement of accused petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded and one witness was examined in defence on 2. 6. 2001 and thereafter the file was put up for final arguments. On 9. 7. 2001, an application was filed by the learned App before the learned trial Magistrate stating that the procedure for trying the summons cases should have been adopted and since the evidence was recorded before charge and the case should have been tried after framing charge and, therefore, it was prayed that in the interest of justice, evidence recorded so far be treated as pre-charge evidence and therefore, the case be disposed of after framing charges. (iv) That application was disposed of by the learned trial Magistrate vide his order dated 24. 9. 2001 holding that as per provisions of Sec. 16-A of the Act of 1954, the trial of the present case should be conducted as summary trial, but since procedure for warrant trial has been adopted and PW. 1 Ramgopal has been examined at length and, therefore, mistake can be cured by accepting the application and further more an opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the accused petitioner to further cross-examine PW. 1 Ram Gopal.

(3.) BEFORE parting with the judgment the question arises whether trial of the case under the Act of 1954 should have been tried as summary trial as per Sec. 16-A or in other words procedure as found in Section 16 (1) being not adopted by the Court, whether trial stands vitiated in into or not.