Amar Nath vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16th November, 1994, whereby the appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but remanded the case back to the trial court for proceeding according to law.

The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :

On 11th September, 1986 at about 11.30 AM, Government Food Inspector Moti Ram Sharma accompanied by Dr. T.R. Girdhar, intercepted the petitioner, Amar Nath, near the bus stand Jhansa Road, Kurukshetra, while he was carrying 35 kilograms of cow''s milk for sale. A sample was taken according to rules and the same was found to be adulterated primarily on the ground that the milk solids not fat were deficient as per the minimum prescribed standard. A complaint was accordingly filed before the competent court and notice was served upon the accused and the procedure for a summary trial was followed. The petitioner, however pleaded not guilty with the result that the evidence of Moti Ram, Government Food Inspector, as PW1 was recorded by Shri M.L. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. Shri M.L. Sharma, aforesaid was thereafter transferred and the statement of Dr. T.R. Girdhar as PW2 was recorded on 9.1.1991 by his successor Shri Balbir Singh, the new Chief Judicial Magistrate and the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the petitioneraccused was also recorded by the same officer. After hearing arguments in the matter, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court as already mentioned above. An appeal was accordingly filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, who without choosing to go into the merits of the controversy held that the prosecution evidence had been partly recorded by Shri M.L. Sharma and then by Shri Balbir Singh and the same could not form the basis of conviction as provided by subsection (3) of section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as proceedings before the court were of a summary nature. The appellate court accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case for fresh decision to the trial court. The petitioner has come up to this court against the order of remand.

Mr. G.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, has urged that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated way back in 1986 and the remand order had been made in 1994 and in the span of eight years, the petitioner had undergone the agony of a protracted trial and to send the case for fresh decision on the basis of remand was therefore not called for. In support of his argument he has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) RCR 302 and the single Bench decision of this court reported as Attam Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) RCR 558 .

As against this, the learned State counsel Miss Aparna Mahajan has urged that the order under challenge in this court was merely one of remand and as food adulteration was a social evil, no latitude should be given to the petitioner and a mere technical flaw in the conduct of the trial before the first court should not allow the accusedpetitoner to go scot free.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and find that on the peculiar facts of the case the petition deserves to succeed. In addition to the fact that the two judgments cited by the learned counsel fully support his case, I have myself examined the record of the case minutely. From this record it transpires that the complaint was presented in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra on 30th October, 1986. After repeated notice to the accused, he appeared before the court for the first time on 26th August, 1987. It is also evident from the record that the prosecution took about 25 different dates to produce its evidence and on about 16 occasions either no PW or some of the PWs were present, whereas on 4/5 occasions, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The statement of the accused was recorded on 26th February, 1992 and the trial court rendered its decision on 17th August, 1992. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner was not responsible whatsoever for the delay in the completion of the proceedings against him.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that to continue further proceedings against the petitioner and to subject him to another trial after a delay of 10 years now would not, in any way, advance the interests of justice. This petition is accordingly allowed, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 16th November, 1994 is set aside and the acquittal of the petitioner is confirmed.