Prem Nath vs State of Haryana

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Prem Nath petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on the charge punishable for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the pervention of Food Adulteration Act, having kept for sale adulterated turmeric powder and was awarded some sentence. Prem Nath then went in appeal, which was partly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned order dated 16.1.87 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for rerecording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for putting him the extent of adulteration in the turmeric powder as per report of the Public Analyst. Feeling aggrieved against the later order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The only controversy involved in this revision petition is whether the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani remanding the case was justifiable under the circumstances of the case as the petitioner had suffered agony during the pendency of the case against him and the appeal a little less than six years.

Mr. Goripuria, learned AAG, Haryana contended that in view of the percentage of adulteration, the order of the learned sessions Judge, Bhiwani is well justifiable.

The perusal of the trial Court judgment reveals that the sample of turmeric powder was taken on 9.3.81 and after receipt of the report of Public Analyst, the complaint was filed on 6.5.81. The trial ended in the conviction of the appellant on 8th April, 1985 and the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani disposed of the appeal on 16th January, 1987 and remanded the case to the trial Court. Thus it can be well said that the petitioner had faced harassment and agony during the pendency of the trial against him for about six years and eight months. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD referred in the trial Court judgment reveals that the total ash in the sample was found to be 28.42% against the maximum prescribed standard of 9% and it also contained 20% edible common salt. No doubt, the adulteration of the turmeric powder is on heavier side yet all the same, keeping in view that right to expeditious trial flows from the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, the abovereferred circumstance pales into insignificance.

The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Brij Mohan v. State of Haryana, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 55 : 1986 Food Adulteration Cases 273 in concluding that under the circumstances of this case, there is no justification in acquitting the accused but remanding the case for fresh trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge has over looked the factum that in Brij Mohan''s case (supra), this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Court. On the other hand, the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana through Government Food Inspector, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 653 : 1988 Volume (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 69 reveals that the order of the remand of the case in appeal on the ground of nonputting the contents of the Analyst report to the accused in statement under Section 313 of the Code was set aside on the ground that the accused has already suffered agony of trial for about 61/2 years. The ratio of Brij Mohan''s case (supra) was distinguished in that judgment and not followed, in the case in hand, the petitioner had suffered agony of pendency of the complaint and the appeal for about six years and either months.

Under these circumstances, there is no option but to accept this petition and set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and order acquittal of the accused. It is ordered accordingly.