Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 359 (PNJ)

Ram Nath v. State of Haryana

2000-03-28

S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
ORDER S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - The petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Section 7 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence mentioned above. He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who vide his impugned judgment dated February 20, 1988 found that certain questions regarding incriminating evidence were not put to the petitioner and he also held that the petitioner was prejudiced by not giving an opportunity to explain his position. He, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate and remanded the case back to him for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 2. The petitioners case in this revision petition is that instead of remanding the case, the petitioner should have been acquitted. 3. There is a finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge that the question regarding incriminating evidence was put to the accused but the answer to those questions have not been recorded and this fact was also admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The question, therefore, remains to be seen is whether the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge should be upheld or not. There appears to be no legal bar in upholding the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge except the question of delay and the agony which the petitioner had to face and will have to face. The case against the petitioner, as per the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was instituted on 29.9.1983. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is dated 20.2.1988. 4. The petitioner has relied on some reported judgments. The case against the petitioner, as per the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was instituted on 29.9.1983. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is dated 20.2.1988. 4. The petitioner has relied on some reported judgments. In the case of Vijay Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 51 which is a judgment for the offence under the Act, it was held by this Court that there was a contention that during the course of examination of the petitioner of that case result of chemical analysis of the salt was not put to him and that caused grave prejudice to him and it has also been considered that the petitioner of that case has undergone the agony of prosecution at the trial stage as well as at the appellate stage for about two and half years by then and it was not proper to order his re-trial. The judgment of both the courts below, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him under the Act, were set aside. 5. In the case of Sat Narain and another v. The State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 174, it has been held by this Court that the appellate court in that case found that nature of adulteration was not put to accused during statement of accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code This Court had considered the prolong trial of the petitioner in that case. The order of learned Sessions Judge was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the offences charged. 6. Considering the view taken by this Court in the above mentioned judgments which have been mentioned by the petitioner in his revision memo, I find that the same view can be followed in the present case. The present case which was instituted, as stated above, in the year 1983 had ended in conviction in the year 1987. The judgment of the appellate Court is dated February 20, 1988 and today this case has come up before me in the year 2000. Applying the principles laid down in the above mentioned above case, I find that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, so far as it remanded the case has to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. Applying the principles laid down in the above mentioned above case, I find that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, so far as it remanded the case has to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. It may be mentioned that similar position had arisen in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, decided on 3.9.1997, under the Prevention of Corruption Act which ended in conviction before the Special Judge and the conviction was maintained by the High Court. In the Supreme Court it was found that the sanction was not proper and the Supreme Court instead of discharging the accused acquitted him. 7. Consequently this revision petition is allowed. The Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. Revision allowed.