Harish Kumar vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Harish Kumar is being tried for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and by means of this petition he seeks quashing of the complaint Annexure P1 and all consequent proceedings.

According to the averments made in the complaint, the Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of 18 litres of cow''s milk for public sale. After serving him a notice in FormVI, he purchased 660 mls. of milk as sample. The same was divided into three equal parts. 18 drops of formaline in each bottle were added as preservative. The bottles were stoppered, labelled and wrapped. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst who found the milk fats to be only 2.3% and milk solids not fat 8.1% thereby having deficiency of 42.5% in the milk fat and 5% deficiency in milk solids not fat.

The learned Magistrate started the case as a warrant trial and after recording precharge evidence, he framed the charge on October 19, 1992. Subsequently, however, in view of the provisions of Section 16A of the Act, he reverted to summary procedure and a notice was served on the petitioner on July 6, 1988. The petitioner complains delay in concluding of the trial which is violative of his rights of speedy trial.

The learned Magistrate having found a legal error having occurred in adopting of the procedure, he made necessary amendment and reverted to the summary procedure and notice was then served.

In view of the observations of the DB authority in Shamlal v. State of Haryana, FAJ 1989 504, no fault can be found with the orders of the Magistrate shifting the trial to one as summary trial.

It has been explained in the return that Dr. H. R. Ghoshal was examined on October 15, 1991 and Kishan Lal was examined on Nov. 12, 1991. After this evidence was recorded, the petitioner came to this Court and on Dec. 5, 1991 obtained a stay order. It is not disputed at the bar that the Ambala Bar had remained on strike for a period from Jan. 1988 to Dec. 1990. In this situation, the petitioner cannot complain of the delay in the trial.

No case is made out for quashing of the complaint and the consequent proceedings. However, a direction is hereby issued to the trial Court to complete the trial within three months from the next date of hearing. Parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the trial Court on May 27, 1993. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.