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
7 paragraphs · 398 wordsS.S. Sodhi, J.
The challenge in revision here is to order of the Sessions Judge, Jind, remanding the case for the recording of the statement of the petitioners afresh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for proceeding with the trial thereafter in accordance with law.
On December 22, 1981, a sample of Sarson oil was purchased by the Food Inspector, which on analysis was found to be adulterated. It was in respect of this offence that both the petitioners were convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/.
In appeal, the Sessions Judge recorded a specific finding that great prejudice had been caused to both the petitioners in the matter of the recording of their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch the incriminating evidence against them had not been put to them. Particular mention in this behalf was made of the respect of the Director, Central Food Laboratory and the contents of that report, as regards the nature of adulteration.
Reference to the record shows that the trial against the petitioners commenced as far back as March, 1982 and it is continued till March, 1985, when it culminated in their conviction by the trial Magistrate. The impugned order is of August 26, 1985.
It is also pertinent to note here that the adulteration in respect of which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced was a minor nature.
There is inherent in a prolonged trial, expense, tension and harassment for an accused, which the court must keep in view while considering the property of an order of the remand when the conviction of an accused stands vitiated by the Court or the prosecution doing or omitting to something which results in prejudice to him. The nature of the offence is, of course, another relevant consideration in such a situation. Seen in this context, it would undoubtedly be in the interests of justice to save the petitioners from further harassment by continuation of the trial. The impugned order of Sessions Judge is accordingly set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be acquitted of the offence charged. The fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to them. This revision petition is thus accepted.