Shyam Lal vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Shyam Lal, petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 7, read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, on July 29, 1983 and sentenced to six month''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and remanded the case to the trial magistrate for examining the accused afresh and deciding the case according to law. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in revision.

I feel that the petitioner is well justified in challenging the said order on the ground that neither there was any justification for ordering retrial nor can the prosecution be allowed to fill in the lacuna left in the case. While ordering this retrial what weighed with the lower appellate court was that the petitioner was not properly examined under S. 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. I am not impressed by this kind of reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In Municipal Committee v. Om Parkash, 1969 PLR 793 the retrial was not ordered as a period of more than 31/2 years had elapsed between the starting of the trial and the order of the High Court. In the present case, now it is more than four years when the petitioner was put on trial. In this view of the matter I do not see any justification in making the petitioner undergo the rigours of trial over again. The direction of remand is accordingly set aside.