A.S.GARG,J - (1.) A sample of cow milk was taken by the Government Food Inspector on 24.3.1984 at 9.30 A.M. from the petitioner near Jauri Khamba Chowk, Ambala City, in the presence of Dr. S.K. Ghambir and Madan Lal and others according to rules after serving a due notice upon the petitioner- vendor and after due payment of price of sample milk. The preservative was added to the sample milk which was divided into three sample bottles. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and two sample bottles were deposited with the local Health Authority Ambala. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained milk fat 4.7% and milk solids not fat 7.0% and thus the milk solids not fact is 18% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards.
(2.) WHEN the case was being tried before the learned trial Magistrate as warrant case the learned Magistrate suddenly switched on to summary proceedings and wanted to try the same as a summons case. Earlier charge framed was converted into a fresh notice which was not warranted by law. The learned counsel relied upon the authority of this Court in Crl.M. No. 7587-M of 1988 decided on 16.2.1988 wherein it was held as under :- "The proposition now canvassed in this Court by Shri H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 trial Court in such circumstances would be acquittal of the accused and not of re-trial according to the summary procedure as ordained by the learned trial Court in its impugned order of August 2, 1988. In result Criminal Miscellaneous succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated August 2, 1988 of the learned trial court is quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him." The sample was taken in the case as far back as 16 years ago. Even if now the trial has to take place the second sample bottle of the milk cannot be examined for a second report and the accused has right to get the second bottle analysed. With such a delay the petitioner would be deprived of chance of leading a reasonable defence. Hence, the Crl. Misc. is allowed and the complaint and the subsequent proceedings are quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Petition allowed.;