AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 226 wordsPunchhi, J. (Oral)
This petition would merit acceptance on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana 1982 (II) F.A.C. 331, for the reason that the contents of the report of the Public Analyst with regard to the extent of adulteration were not put to the accusedpetitioner when examined under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. That such a requirement was considered necessary in that case is unexceptionable due to the specific change brought under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The conviction on that basis needs to be and is hereby upset.
In order to see what is to be done to the accused petitioner, it has to be borne in mind that the occurrence took place on 151982 and the threat of punishment has been hanging over the head of the petitioner for some seven years. In these circumstances, it would not be desirable to remit the case back to the trial Magistrate for rerecording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking these factors into consideration, it is held that it is not a case fit for remand.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted. Fine if paid be refunded.
Revision accepted.