Ashok Kumar vs State (Union Territory) Chandigarh

G. Chahal, J.

Ashok Kumar Petitioner, by means of this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh in the complaint case, State v. Ashok Kumar under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The petitioner is being tried on the basis that a sample of Besan kept by the petitioner had been drawn by the Food Inspector which was found to be adulterated. On 2311989, a charge was framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. On 2531991 the learned Magistrate found that the offence was serious and a sentence of more than one year could be awarded and that it was a case which should be tried as a warrant trial. It was probably due to inadvertence that a specific order to that effect had not been passed when the charges were framed. He then directed that the case be tried as a w warrant case and that the same be fixed for precharge evidence.

The petitioner challenges the prosecution on the basis that the complaint was vague and further that the learned Magistrate was not competent to change the procedure and once a charge was framed, it must end in acquittal but the Magistrate could not reconsider the matter.

So far as the first contention of the learned counsel is concerned I find no merit in the same. The complaint contains all the details with respect to the sample drawn and the report made by the Public Analyst.

With respect to the second objection, the observations in Shyam v. The State of Haryana and others, 1991 (1) FAC 172 is a complete reply. The same reads as under

"9. In case the proposition laid down in Pawan Kumar''s case, 1989(2) FAC 36, in so far as the same lays down that such an order vitiates the whole trial resulting in acquittal is too wide to be accepted as a correct statement of law. There might be cases, depending on their own facts and circumstances in which the High Court may in its wisdom quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent power, it cannot be laid down that on the passing of the order changing one procedure for another would by itself result in the proceeding being vitiated. We may further point out that even if a certain order which is impugned is quashed, acquittal does not follow as a natural consequence. What normally follows is a trial from the stage at which the impugned order was passed or a fresh trial without the defect which was impugned. It is only on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of a given case that the High Court may be persuaded to quash the entire proceedings and order acquittal. This does not follow as a corollary to the quashing of an order by which the accused may feel aggrieved".

The learned Magistrate had only rectified the mistake committed by his predecessor and had restarted with the precharge evidence. The criminal miscellaneous is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

Misc. dismissed.