SHYAM SUNDER MODI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the course of hearing of D. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 127/91, Shyam Sunder Modi vs. State of Rajasthan and another, several cases appear to have been cited before learned brother Hon'ble M. B. Sharma J. , who noticed conflicting opinions of various courts differently interpreting S. 16-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954") which provision deals with the powers of the court to try cases arising under the Act summarily. Hon'ble Justice Sharma referred the revision petition itself while framing the following questions:- "if an offence under S. 16 (1) of the P. F. A. Act which has to be tried in a summary manner has been tried as a warrant case, then whether merely because it has been, so tried, the proceedings are vitiated or it is a mere irregularity and it is further necessary for the accused to show that as a result of the trial of the case as a warrant case prejudice has been caused to him?"

(2.) AFTER the aforesaid question was referred two more revision petitions namely, Chhotulal vs. State of Rajasthan S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 20/90 and Govind Ram vs. State of Rajasthan S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 132/91 were also ordered to be tagged with the aforesaid revision petition, hence all the three revision petitions have come up for hearing before us.

(3.) IN Brijlal Vs. State of P& H (3), Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of & P&h (4), Jaswant Singh Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh (5), and Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Haryana (6), the court quashed the entire proceedings due to illegality in trying cases as a warrant cases in view of the provisions of S. 16a of the Act. The cases were not sent even for re-trial.