Ram Bhaj vs State of Haryana

A.P. Chowdhri, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was tried for aim offened under section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. By order dated 21.5.1988 he was convicted and sentenced to RI for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default, he was further sentenced to RI for one mouth. He preferred an appeal. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by order dated 1111989. It was held that the requirement to try the petitioner in a summary way was mandatory, whereas he was tried according to warrant procedure. The conviction and sentence thus stood vitiated. The conviction was, therefore, set aside and the case was remanded with the direction that the petitioner should be tried afresh according to law. The said order of the Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in this revision

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a string of authorities of this Court to the effect that where the petitioner has had to face the agony of trial over a period lasting three years and above, there is no justification to remand the case for a fresh trial and the appropriate order to be passed is one of acquittal. Learned counsel has relied on the following authorities :

Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, 1983 FAI 3

Madan Lal v. The State of Haryana, 1985(1) FAC 192.

Nand Lal v. The State of Haryana, 1987(2) PLR 143.

Mange v. State of Haryana, 1990(1) Recent CR. 154.

Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1990(1) Recent CR. 331.

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) Recent CR. 278.

Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1990(3) Recent CR. 254.

The sample, in the facts of the present case, was taken on September 26. 1984 The conviction was recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, on December 21, 1988 and thus the petitioner has had to face a protracted criminal proceeding against him.

There are no significant features in this case justifying a different view.

For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is allowed and the order remanding the case to the trial court is hereby set aside