NARESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 30.6.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur whereby he, accepting the appeal of the petitioner, set aside his conviction and sentence Under Section 7/16, P.F. Act, but ordered his retrial by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE relevant facts to decide the misc. petition are these. Shri Gauri Shanker, Food Inspector purchased sample of ground -nut oil from the petitioner for analysis on 4.5.1990 and sent it to the Public Analyst, who opined that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector filed complaint against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the Food Inspector and framed a charge under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter the remaining prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused petitioner led evidence in defence. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned ACJM convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 6 months S.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The conviction was challenged by the petitioner by preferring appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3 who in the impugned order held that it was mandatory for the Magistrate to follow procedure of summaiy trial and as the trial was not held in summary manner the conviction was not sustainable. He, therefore, set aside the conviction but directed the retrial of the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that as the entire evidence had already been recorded, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have decided the appeal on merits.