Gurdial Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The challenge in revision here is to the remand of the case to the trial Magistrate to record afresh the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and to proceed with the case thereafter according to law.

A sample of cow''s milk was, in this case, purchased by the Food Inspector from the, petitioner Gurdial Singh on December 15, 1981. On analysis, the Public Analyst, by his report exhibit PD found that the sample contained 8.2 per cent milksolids not fat as against the prescribed minimum standard of 8.3 per cent. In other words, the sample in respect of milksolids not fat was deficient to the extent of 0.1 per cent. The petitioner was tried and convicted in respect of this offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ by the order of the trial Magistrate on December 22, 1984.

In appeal, it was found that the contents of the report of the Public Analyst exhibit PD had not been specifically put to the petitioner while examining him under Section 313 of the Code and on this account the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded for recording of the statement of the petitioner afresh under Section 313 of the Code and for disposal of the case thereafter in accordance with law. It is this order that is now questioned in revision.

There is inherent in the prolongation of the trial expense, tension and harassment for the accused and this is indeed a circumstance which must be kept in view while considering the passing of an order for remand or retrial. In the present case, it will be seen that the trial against the petitioner commenced as far back as 1981 and it was towards the end of 1985 that the impugned order of remand was passed against him by the Sessions Judge. The offence itself shows a deficiency of a minor nature. In these circumstances, it would clearly be unjust to subject the petitioner to the harassment of any further trial. In this view of the matter, impugned order is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence charged. The fine, if paid, is also ordered to be refunded to him.

This revision petition is thus accepted.