- (1.) Continuation of the trial against the petitioner, in the circumstances of this case, would clearly be unwarranted harassment, which it would not be in the interests of justice, to countenance and in this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be sustained.
(2.) In the present case, a complaint under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was filed against the petitioner as far back as in Sept. 1978, on the allegations that he had with him cow's milk for sale, which on analysis was found to be deficient both in milk fat and also in milk solids not fat. In Feb. 1983, on the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted in respect of the said offence and sentenced to six months, rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, however, the case was remanded for retrial to enable the petitioner to cross-examine the Food Inspector. The petitioner was thereafter again convicted and sentenced in the same manner by the order of the trial Magistrate of May 3, 1984. On appeal, again the appeal was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment of Oct. 11, 1985 but the case was remanded to the trial Magistrate, this time for recording the statement of the petitioner afresh under S.313 of the Criminal P.C. and to give him an opportunity to lead any additional defence evidence that he may wish to adduce and thereafter to decide the case in accordance with law.
(3.) Indeed, in the situation which has arisen here it would be pertinent to keep in mind what as said by the Supreme Court in case Machander v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792, wherein it was observed : "Justice is not one-sided. It has many facets and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detections of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go. Except in clear cases of guilt, where the error is purely technical, the forces that are arrayed against the accused should no more be permitted in special appeal to repair the effects of their bungling than an accused should be permitted to repair gaps in his defence which he could and ought to have made good in the lower courts. The scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for the accused or against him, whether in favour of the State or not; and one broad rule must apply in all cases.";