S.S.SODHI, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;