I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) Petitioner Nikka Ram was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, for an offence under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This conviction and sentence has been set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, for the reason that the trial of the petitioner stood vitiated as the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, which had been discussed and relied upon by the trial Court, was not put to the petitioner while examining him under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. The said Court remanded the case for a fresh trial. The petitioner has now challenged this order of the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that there was no justification to make the petitioner undergo the rigours of another trial and to allow the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in its case.
(2.) I feel the petitioner is well justified in challenging the said order on both the grounds that neither there was any justification for ordering retrial nor can the prosecution be allowed to fill in the lacuna left in the case. While ordering this retrial what weighed with the lower Appellate Court is that the acquittal of the petitioner on such technical grounds, that is, the omission on the part of the Magistrate to put to him the relevant material appearing against him should not entitle him to any indulgence. I am not impressed by this kind of reasoning adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge. In fact this runs counter to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Municipal Committee Vs. Om Parkash, 1969 P.L.R. 763, noticed by the said Court in paragraph 4 of its judgment. In that case the retrial was not ordered as a period of more than four and a half years had elapsed between the starting of the trial and the order of the High Court. In the case in hand, now it is more than five years when the petitioner was pul on trial. In this view of the matter I do not see any justification in making the petitioner undergo the rigorous of trial over again.
(3.) Consequently, I allow this petition and set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court ordering retrial of the petitioner. Petition allowed.;