ATTAM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks quashing of complaint dated 28.7.1982 under sections 7, 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and the order dated 25.1.1988 passed by respondent No. 2 for initiating fresh trial under Section 16-A of the Act as well as show cause notice dated 26.2.1988.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that a false complaint dated 28.7.1982 under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class alleging therein that the Food Inspector visited his shop along with other witnesses and found him in possession of 5 kg of milk for sale. He purchased 660 M. litre of milk which was divided into three equal parts. One sample of the milk was sent to the Public Analyst. As per certificate of the Public Analyst, the sample contained milk fat 7.2% and milk solids not fat 8.1% milk, solids not fat was 10% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. The trial of the case was proceeded as warrant case and charges were framed on 10.2.1983. It is after a gap of about 5 years that the Court found that the case ought to have been tried in a summary manner in view of the judicial pronouncement of this Court-noticing the decision in case reported as Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(II) F.A.C. 95. The Magistrate accordingly ordered for fresh trial of the case in summary manner vide order dated 25.1.1988 and so gave notice to the accused for 26.2.1988. According to the petitioner, since the matter remained pending for a pretty longtime without any progress, retrial of the case in a summary manner was wholly uncalled for. In fact, the Magistrate had no other option but to order the acquittal of the petitioner; that the retrial of the case is violation of the previsions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; principles of natural justice and that it would prejudice the petitioner. For these aforesaid reasons, pending proceedings deserve to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As per certificates of the Public Analyst, the sample of milk contained milk fats 7.2% and milk solids not fat 8.1%. The minimum requirement as per Act is milk-fat 5%, milk solids not fat 8.5%. So the sample was deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of 4% whereas milk fats were in excess to the extent of 2.2%. The sample was taken on 28.7.1982 and the matter remained pending without any progress till 25.1.1988 when the Judicial Magistrate keeping in view the judicial pronouncement of this Court in Nand Lal's case (supra) chose to try the case in a summary way. Thus, the proceedings conducted so far i.e. upto 25.1.1988 became redundant. No doubt, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay, yet the same has to be kept in view in overall judging the desirability of continuing proceedings launched way back in the year 1982. This Court in a number of cases have kept this fact in view while allowing a revision petition or quashing the same under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Nand Lal's case (supra) it was held that the petitioner has been harassed for a period of about 4 years and it would be in the interest of justice to acquit him instead of having fresh trial. In this case, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Appeal was filed against this order and learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the trial was vitiated inasmuch as it was to be held as summary trial under Section 16(A) of the Act and so remanded the case for retrial. It is against this order that revision petition was filed which was allowed on the ground that the petitioner has already been harassed for almost four years and it would be appropriate to acquit him instead of ordering a fresh trial.