Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2475 (RAJ)

Mahaveer Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-08-17

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceeding in Cr. Case No. 742/1994 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Carefully gone through the order dated 25.8.2001 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) as also the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judged, Banswara (for short 'the appellate Court' hereinafter) in Cr. Appeal No. 34/2005, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.5.2001. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been facing trial since 1994 and due to such an inordinate delay in concluding the trial, the trial deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that though the prosecution was instituted in 1994 but the trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7-16 of the Act vide order dated 25.8.2001 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was an inordinate delay in concluding the trial. The petitioner availed right to appeal against the order of conviction and sentence and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with certain directions. By the order dated 3.1.2006, the trial Court thought it fit to proceed against the petition under Section 16-A proviso second of the Act. 5. The appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner, noticed that the trial Court has not recorded the reasons and, therefore, remanded the matter to the trial Court that either the trial Court to proceed under Section 16-A of the Act read with Sections 262 to 265 Cr.P.C. to try the case as a summary case or if the trial Court thinks to proceed as a warrant trial, then reasons be recorded and to proceed as a warrant trial. In compliance of the order of the appellate Court, the trial Court passed the order dated 3.1.2006 and proceeded as a warrant case. 6. In compliance of the order of the appellate Court, the trial Court passed the order dated 3.1.2006 and proceeded as a warrant case. 6. I have gone through the order of the trial Court dated 3.1.2006. The order does not disclose the reasons as to why the matter be not tried as a summary case. 7. Second proviso to Section 16-A of the Act provides that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this Section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a terms exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code. 8. The language of second proviso to Section 16-A of the Act is very clear that if the Magistrate at the commencement of the trial of the case feels that the trial of the case is undesirable, it must record the reasons and proceed to trial as a warrant case. Order dated 3.1.2006 does not fulfill the requirement of Section 16- A of the Act. The appellate Court in specific terms directed the trial Court to record the reasons for warrant trial of the case. This appears that the order dated 3.1.2006 passed by the trial Court does not fulfill the requirement of second proviso to Section 16-A of the Act. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the trial was concluded by the trial Court expeditiously as also the appeal was disposed of, in my view there is no delay in disposing of the case as also the appeal. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is partly allowed. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the trial was concluded by the trial Court expeditiously as also the appeal was disposed of, in my view there is no delay in disposing of the case as also the appeal. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 3.1.2006 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to pass a fresh order in compliance of the order of the appellate Court as also keeping in view the second proviso to Section 16-A of the Act and if the trial Court considers to try the case summary undesirable, then to record the reasons, may be in brief and pass a fresh order.Petition partly allowed. *******