Criminal Revision No. 630 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 630 of 1997 Date of Decision: 23.01.2008. State of Haryana …Petitioner Versus M/s Goel Sales Corporation and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Shalini Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the State of Haryana against the discharge of respondents. The respondents were discharged by relying upon Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India 1996 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 419. Ms. Shalini Attri, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has drawn my attention to para 6 of the judgment and has stated that in the cases under Essential Commodities Act, Food Adulteration Act, Acts dealing with Environment or any other economic offences, benefit of this judgment cannot be granted. Criminal Revision No. 630 of 1997 2 I have perused the judgment and have no hesitation to hold that impugned order dated 27.1.1997 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 has stated that sample was taken on 15.7.1991. A period of 17 years has lapsed, therefore, if the petitioners are put to trial at this stage that will be unjust. Mr. Gupta seeks liberty to raise all arguments including argument of delay before the appropriate Court. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 25.2.2008. Various efforts of this Court have failed to secure the presence of respondents No.3 and 4 even by issuing bailable warrants. It has been brought to my notice that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have not appeared before the trial Court. Since the respondents have not appeared for trial, there is no necessity to hear them at this stage. Furthermore, since they had not put appearance before the trial Court, no right vest in them. They have been simply summoned by the trial Court. Mere summoning cannot prejudice them as they can raise all pleas available to them before the trial Court. Hence, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.1.1997 is set aside. The trial Court is at liberty to use coercive methods to secure the presence of respondents No.3 and 4. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 23, 2008 “DK”