S.S.SODHI, J. - (1.) THE challenge in revision here is to the judgment of the Sessions Judge, remanding the case to the trial Court for recording the statement of the petitioner afresh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to decide the case thereafter in accordance with law.
(2.) THE facts relevant to this matter are that on December 15, 1981, a sample of wheat-atta was purchased by the Food Inspector from a gunny bag lying in the premises of the petitioner, which on analysis was found to be adulterated inasmuch as it contained Ash insoluble in dilute H.I.O. 2 per cent against the maximum prescribed standard of O. 15 per cent and the sample also contained 0.1 per cent grit and its taste was also gritty. It is in respect thereof that the petitioner was tried and eventually convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000/-. In appeal the finding was recorded by the Sessions Judge that the trial Magistrate had omitted to put to the petitioner the particulars of the report of the Public Analyst, when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this omission had certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner in his defence. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner was, on this account, set aside and the case remanded to the trial Magistrate for afresh decision. There is inherent in the prolongation of a trial against the accused, expense and harassment, which the Court must keep in view in a case like the present while considering whether or not the case deserves to be remanded. Also relevant in this behalf is the nature of the offence charged against the petitioner.
(3.) IN the present case, it would be seen that the trial against the petitioner commenced as far back as February, 1982 and it was in December, 1984 that it culminated in his conviction and sentence by the trial Magistrate. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge is of September 30, 1985. The petitioner must undoubtedly have undergone considerable harassment and strain during this prolonged period of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him in this case. Seen in this context, there can be no escape from the conclusion that it would not be in the interests of justice to allow any further harassment to the petitioner by the continuation of the trial. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge is accordingly hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot, therefore, stand.;