Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana

S.K. Jain, J.(Oral)

The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration ACt, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, who sentenced him to undergo R.I for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 15 days. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence both of September 15, 1988, were challenged in appeal by the convict Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his order of February 21, 1989 accepted the appeal, quashed the conviction and order of sentence, and remanded the case for re trial to the court below. The said order in appeal has been impugned before this Court in this criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case had to be tried summarily but it was tried as a warrant case and the petitioner had already undergone harassment for a period of about 6 years for no fault of his and therefore, deserved to be acquitted instead of having a fresh trial.

On the other hand, Shri S.S. Gill, learned A.A.G. Haryana has argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. The sample of methi was taken on 15th February, 1983. The complaint was instituted on 30th March, 1983. The case was tried as a warrant case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani who convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned hereinbefore vide his judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both of September 15, 1988. The appeal of the accused against the said order was accepted on February 1, 1989, and the remand order was passed whereafter the convict has preferred this revision petition.

Section 16A was introduced by the Amending Act 34. It had come into force with effect from April 1, 1976. The Government of Haryana issued Notification No. 42014 HBII77/32799 on October 20, 1977 giving summary powers to the Judicial Magistrates for the purpose of said section to try all offences under Subsection (1) of Section 16 of the Act with the result that trials after 20th June, 1976 were to be held in a summary manner. The present trial was held as a warrant case which was not in accordance with law. It is evident from the provisions of Section 16A that a speedy trial if of utmost importance to an accused person and it is not open to the court to order a fresh trial and the only course open to it is to record a finding of acquittal. This case is fully covered by the following judgments :

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 3;

Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 172; and

P.N. Mathur v. State of Haryana, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 79.

Accordingly our own Full Bench in Budh Ram and another v. State of Haryana, 1984 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 179, the provisions of Section 16(1) have been held to be mandatory and the First Appellate Court had rightly set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on that ground that it had erred in not acquitting the accused and instead ordering retrial in a summary manner.

As mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, the petitioner has already undergone harassment for a period of about 6 years. After the decision of appeal the accused has preferred this revision petition and has thus suffered much in terms of harassment and expenditure.

With the said observations, this criminal revision is accepted and the order passed by the first appellate court directing fresh trial is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.

Revision accepted.