S.D.BAJAJ,J - (1.) SAMPLE of wheat flour obtained by Food Inspector from the shop of petitioner Mohan Lal situated near Railway Station, Loharu in Bhiwani district of Haryana State around 11-15 A.M. on 5th November, 1985 did not conform to the prescribed standard and was also found to be insect-infested. Consequently a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani oil 8th January, 1986. Charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was framed against the petitioner therein by the learned trial court on 17th September, 1986. The complaint case is being tried following the warrant case procedure. Petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. No. 10594-M of 1990 for quashing the complaint and the charge on the ground that summary procedure prescribed for such like cases having not been followed, the petitioner, has unnecessarily suffered the agony of protracted trial for nearly five years by now and should, therefore, be quashed.
(2.) I have heard Shri Mani Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Surinder Lamba, Advocate for the State and have carefully, gone through the complaint and the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned trial court. This court has repeatedly held in Budh Ram v. State of, Haryana, 1985 Criminal Law Times 372, Brij Pal v. The State of Haryana, 1989(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 568 and Mahabir Parshad v. The State of Haryana, 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 182 (P&H) : 1989 Criminal Law Times 21 : "From the above it is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under Section 16(1) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrate, unless such a Magistrate in writing opines that the accused deserves greater dose of, sentence and so he tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Criminal PC. But the Judicial Magistrates can hold summary trial only if they are specially so empowered. So, unless they are specially so empowered the question of their holding summary trial would not arise. However, once the Judicial Magistrates are specially so empowered, then they cannot discriminate between one case and the other; they shall have to try every offence under Section 16(1) in the first instance in a summary way and if it given offence is such that the offender requires to be awarded, greater sentences than could be awarded as a result of summary trial, then in that case after passing such an order in writing, would be entitled to try/such offenders in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code for the given offence".
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , in the present case the trial Magistrate neither applied his mind that greater sentence was to be awarded to the offender, than could be awarded as it result of summary procedure, nor, any such order was passed in writing. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of the trial Magistrate to try the accused summarily, and follow appropriate procedure in that regard. Thus, in the instant case, the trial, which was held as a warrant case, was not in accordance with law.;