S.D.Bajaj, J. - (1.) Sample of cows milk collected by Government Food Inspector from Chet Singh, petitioner on 21st October, 1985 was found to be adulterated on analysis. Complaint Annexure P-l, therefore, resulted in conviction of the accused-petitioner by the learned trial Court on 28th May, 1987. In Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1987, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for non-observance of summary procedure therein and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for re-trial in accordance with law. It has been urged before me in Criminal Misc. No.l200-M of 1988 that the learned trial Court having not availed itself of the summary procedure, prescribed for trial of such like cases, learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have ordered acquittal of the accused-petitioner in appeal and not remand the case to the learned trial Court for fresh trial as per summary procedure.
(2.) The same proposition came to be considered earlier in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana 1982 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 331; Chattar Bhuj v. State of Haryana 1985 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 205, Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana 1986 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 150 and Nand Lal v. State of Haryana 1987 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 95 wherein it was repeatedly held that appropriate order to be passed by the learned lower appellate Court in such circumstances would be of acquittal of the accused and not of re-trial according to summary procedure as ordained by the learned Addition Sessions Judge Kurukshetra in his impugned judgment dated 13th January, 1988.
(3.) In result, Criminal Misc. No. 1200-M of 1988 succeeds and is allow Impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dated January, 1988 is quashed and petitioner Chet Singh is acquitted. Application dismissed.;