S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P 1) filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (shortly the Act) and the consequent proceedings taken thereunder including charge (Annexure P 3) under section 16(1)(a)(i), read with section 7 of the Act rained against the petitioner and his co-accused Phool Singh Thekedar, Theka Sharab Desi, Loharu Road, Near Devsar Octroi Post, Bhiwani on 27-8-1987.
(2.) IN brief, the relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 23-9-1982, Food Inspector visited the liquor vend of the petitioner at Loharu Road, near Devsar Octroi Post, Bhiwani and purchased 540 ml of liquor. After dividing the sample into 3 parts, one such part was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. Report from the Public Analyst was received to the effect that the sample gave strength % proof as 55.73 against the declaration of 60%. Since the sample of country made liquor was found to be sub-standard, complaint was filed against the present petitioner and another. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the trial Court has erred in framing charge against the petitioner and trying the case by warrant procedure instead of trying it summarily. Reliance in this respect his been rightly placed on Full Bench decision of this Court in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana, 1984(2) FAC 179 wherein it was held. It is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under section 16(1) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrates, unless such a Magistrate in writing opines that the accused deserved greater dose of sentence and so he be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Criminal Procedure Code." It was further held in the afore cited authority, that once the Judicial Magistrates are specially so empowered, then they cannot discriminate between one case and the other, and they shall have to try every offence under section 16(1) in the first instance in a summary way, and if a given offence is such that the offender requires to be awarded greater sentence than could be awarded as a result of summary trial, then in that case after passing such an order in writing, would be entitled to try such offenders in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code for the given offence." "The aforesaid authority in Budh Ram's case was followed by Single Bench of this Court in Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) FAC 95 : 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 467.and it was held that the trial held as a warrant case was not in accordance with law." The said authority was followed by this Court in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) FAC 282 : 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 182. Since the trial Court has erred in following the procedure meant for a warrant case instead of trying the case summarily, the trial against the petitioner is not legal and valid and the same, including the charge framed against the petitioner, is liable to be quashed.
(3.) FOR the fore going reasons, complaint and charge framed against the petitioner, is directed to be quashed, and the petitioner is directed to be acquitted. This petition is accordingly allowed.;