JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 9th May, 1991. The accused petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 7(16) (1) C of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar and sentenced to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by its impugned order confirmed the conviction and sentenced passed and rejected the appeal of the accused petitioner. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 24.12.83, when Food Inspector wanted to take sample of groundnut oil from the accused, he refused to give sample, refused to accept the Form No. (vi) and closed the shop. Therefore, a complaint was filed in the court after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the competent authority. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered summary trial of the case, and after recording the evidence of complainant, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.RC. and the statement of defence witnesses, held that the case has been proved against the accused, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. His appeal was also dismissed. 4. A very short question is involved in this revision petition. The learned counsel has submitted that the trial of the offence being summary trial as provided under the first proviso to Section 16(4) of the Act, but part of the evidence was recorded by one Magistrate and part of the evidence was recorded by his successor, therefore, the whole trial is vitiated. He has also submitted that the incident had taken place on 24.12.83 almost more than 13 years ago. No useful purpose will be served by ordering retrial. Therefore, the revision petition be allowed, the conviction and sentence be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted. He has placed reliance on the decisions: (1) Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (2) RLR 553 and (ii) Ramdayal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 768 . The learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the above legal position but submitted that the case be remanded to the trial court for retrial.I have gone through the record of the trial court which shows that on 5th August, 86, the learned Magistrate after reading the substance of accusation ordered for recording the prosecution evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the above legal position but submitted that the case be remanded to the trial court for retrial.I have gone through the record of the trial court which shows that on 5th August, 86, the learned Magistrate after reading the substance of accusation ordered for recording the prosecution evidence. He recorded the statement of PW1 Murari Lal, (PW 2) TK Gupta, (PW 3) CP Shukla (PW 4) Dr. D.M. Verma. Thereafter statement of defence witnesses DW 1 Azad and DW 2 Phool Chand were recorded by his successor and judgment was also pronounced by him. as the trial of the offence being summary trial, the accused has a right that his case should be heard and decided by the same Magistrate. The provisions of Section 326(3) Cr.P.C. are not applicable. Therefore, the entire trial is vitiated. 5. Ordinarily, under these circumstances, the case should have been remanded for re-trial. But as stated earlier the incident had taken place almost 13 years ago, the case remained pending in the trial court for almost 4 years, he had to appear in the court on every date, fixed in the trial court and to incur expenses, must have suffered mental agony. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case for retrial after a lapse of 13 years. 6. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Act is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Act. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender.> Petitioner allowed. *******