P.N.Mathur vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J.

The present petition has been filed praying that the order dated 10 December. 1987 (Annexure P2) should be quashed.

The facts relevant to filing of this petition are that on 2331984, the Food Inspector, Yamunanagar, took a sample of the ice cream from the shop of Dial Ghai son of Shri Bhim Sain. On analysis, the Public Analyst found the ice cream was not up to the prescribed standard and accordingly a complaint/Annexure P1 was filed by the Food Inspector against Dial Ghai aforesaid and the proprietor of Messrs Mala Cool Corner, Yamunanagar who was said to be the distributor of the ice cream. The complaint was filed on 23rd March, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was also impleaded as an accused being the manufacturer of the ice cream. Charge against the petitioner was accordingly framed by the trial Magistrate on 71186 and evidence against the accused was also recorded on various dates. On 10th December, 1987however, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri made the impugned order holding that the offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was triable summarily in view of the provisions of section 16A of the Act. It is against this order that the petitioner has come before this Court.

Several opportunities were afforded to the State to complete its, instructions, but nothing appears to have been done. Today also the State has not been represented by a counsel. I have, however, considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and am of the view that the impugned order, Annexure P2, cannot be sustained. The case is fully covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgments of this Court reported as Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others. 1989(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 3, and Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Casts 172. In both these cases, It has been held that in case the trial court comes to the conclusion that the proper procedure has not been followed, it is not open to the court to order a fresh trial and the only course open to the court is to record a finding of acquittal. it is to be borne in mind that a speedy trial is of the utmost importance to an accused. The petitioner herein was charged as far back as on 7th November, 1986, although the complaint had been filed on 23rd March, 1984. A number of witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution when the trial was being held as a warrant case. It would, therefore be highly inequitable to allow the proceedings to continue any further. The present petition is, therefore allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him.