M.M.PUNCHHI,J - (1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the appellate order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
(2.) THE petitioner herein on November 26, 1982 was made to sell a sample of Boora or Desi Khand to Shri A.N. Sharma, Government Food Inspector, Sonepat (PW-1) in the presence of Dr. Baldev Dutt PW-2 and the sample was found to be adulterated on examination by the Public Analyst, but his opinion was substituted by the second opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The later opinion confirmed that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it did not conform to the standard of Boora prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prosecution was successful in proving the charge against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on June 3, 1985. His appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge was allowed and the case was remitted back for re-trial in accordance with law. For such a step, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that the offence against the petitioner was triable summarily and thus, the procedure of a warrant case adopted by the learned trial Magistrate was unwarranted in law vitiating the trial. The learned Counsel for the petitioner supports the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in so far as the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate has been set aside. He, however, objects to the remand order on the ground that the petitioner has suffered enough, for it has taken seven years already for process of law being in motion, and nowhere any conclusion is in sight, all the more when after the trial stage, the appellate and the revisional stages too might have to be crossed over. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on a decision rendered by me in Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana, 1983 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 31, wherein the facts of that case, a 3 years hang of prosecution was a factor which militated against the matter being remanded. Reliance was also placed on a decision rendered by Ujagar Singh, J. in Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) PLR 143, in which a four-year time gap dissuaded the Hon'ble Judge to have a fresh trial of the accused as it was viewed that the accused cannot be held responsible for the mistaken procedure.
(3.) BOTH these cases arose under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, where after setting aside the conviction and sentence, the question of remanding the case back for fresh trial had cropped up. The time-lag tilted the balance in favour of the accused. In this case, as observed before, the sample was taken on November 26, 1982 and today in the year 1989, the matter is still pending. The trial was earlier concluded by conviction and sentence on June 3, 1985 and the appeal of the petitioner was decided on July 19, 1988, whereafter the petitioner had to approach this Court in revision and have the proceedings before the trial Court stayed. In this situation, the petitioner has had enough and he has sufficiently been harassed. It will not be in the interest of justice to put him to trial. I would rather acquit him instead.;