CHHOTU GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Beawar whereby while setting aside the conviction order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, the learned Judge has remanded the case back for be novo trial to the learned trial court.

(2.) Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Beawar namely Gauri Shankar filed a complaint against the accused- petitioner before the Court of ACJM, Beawar alleging therein that on 28.11.1992, at about 9:45 A.M., he took a sample of milk from the accused-petitioner. In analysis, the same was found to be adulterated. Hence, he prayed that the accused-petitioner be punished for the offence U/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the P.F. Act', for short). On filing of the complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused-petitioner. It framed the charge for offence under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act against him. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses, and produced some documents. The statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After recording the evidence and after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 12.05.2008, the learned trial court convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act and sentenced him.

(3.) Since the accused-petitioner was aggrieved by the conviction order dated 12.05.2008, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. The only contention raised by the accused- petitioner was that the mandatory provision of Section 16(A) of the P.F. Act has not been followed by the trial court. Therefore, the entire trial stood vitiated. According to Section 16(A) of the P.F. Act, ordinarily the trial is to be conducted in a summary proceeding. However, in cases where it appears to the trial court that the sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year needs to be imposed, or it is of the opinion that it is undesirable to try the case summarily, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and to the accused, the trial court may proceed as though it is a warrant trial. This contention of the petitioner was accepted by the appellate court and vide order dated 17.07.2009, the learned Judge set aside the conviction order dated 12.05.2008 and remanded the case back for a denovo trial. Hence, this petition before this Court.