Roshan Lal vs State of Haryana

Ujagar Singh, J.—On 11-12-1980, Food Inspector Satpal Malik, accompanied by Dr. R.K. Sharma, the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Health), Gurgaon, came to the business premises of the petitioner and served notive Ex. P.A., after disclosing his identity. The Food Inspector then purchased 600 grams of Bura from one of the two gunny bags, lying there. These gunny bags contained 90 kg. of Bura each. Payment of Rs. 3/60 paise was made by the Food Inspector to the petitioner vide receipt Ex. PB. for the purpose of analysis. The sample was divided into 3 equal parts and made into sample bottles, as per memo Ex. PC which was attested by Ram Parkash, an independent witness, associated by the Food Inspector from there.

One of the sealed bottles was sent to Public Analyst and report Ex. PC was received According to the report, the sample contained 437 PPM (parts per million) of sulphur-dioxide against maximum prescribed standard of 70 PPM. The Food Inspector filed this complaint against the petitioner, as well as the firm.

Intimation for launching the prosecution and the petitioner''s right to get the sample analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad was given to the petitioner vide letter dt. 26-2-1981, Ex. PF.

The prosecution examined Food Inspector Satpal Malik as PW 1 and after examining him, a charge was framed for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After the charge was framed, Food Inspector Satpal Malik (PW 1) was recalled for further cross-examination and the prosecution produced Om Parkash (PW 2), Sales Tax Assistant from the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner; Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW 3) and Ram Parkash Wason (PW 4). After close of the prosecution case, the petitioner was examined u/s 313 of the Criminal P.C. and an opportunity was given to him to produce his defence, but no witness was produced in defence.

Ultimately, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty under the said section and after convicting him thereunder, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The trial Court, in view of the statement of Om Parkash (PW 2) to the effect that the firm was a sole proprietorship of the petitioner did not pass any separate sentence on the firm, M/s. Rameshwar Dass Hari Ram.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed on 6-3-1985, maintaining the conviction and sentence.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid stress that after Section 16A was added in;the Act by the amending Act, 34 of 1976 which came into force with effect from 1-4-1976, the trial could be held only in a summary manner. He has relied upon our own Full Bench Decision in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana (1984) 2 FAC 179 : 1985 Cri LJ 311, wherein the provisions of Section 16A have been held to be mandatory and therefore, the trial in this case stands vitiated. Section 16A of the Act is reproduced as under:

16A. Power of court to try cases summarily.- Not with standing anything contained in the Criminal P.C., 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial;

Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year:

Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code.

As required by the added Section 16A, the State of Haryana issued Notification No. 4201-4HBII-77/32799 dt. 20-10-1977 and in that Notification all the Judicial Magistrates were given powers of summary trial for the purpose of this section to try the offence under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. In view of this provision, the trial Court had the power under the said Notification to try this case by a summary trial as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the trial stands vitiated. In this case, the sample of Bura was taken on 11-12-1980 and the complaint was filed on 25-2-1981 and decided by the trial Court only on 22-3-1984. The appeal was filed and thereafter decided on 6-3-1985. This revision was filed on 11-3-1985. It was admitted on 15-3-1985.

In view of the above dates, it is clear that the petitioner has undergone the agony of trial and subsequent proceedings in this case since 11-12-1980 till today which comes to about 61/2 years. In such a situation, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case to the trial Court for proceeding according to law. Rather, it is a case where the petitioner has undergone harassment for a period of 61/2 years and I would, therefore, allow this revision.

With the foregoing observations, this revision is accepted and the orders passed by the first Appellate Court and also by the trial Court are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges.