Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 Date of Decision: 9.3.2009 Union of India …Petitioner Versus Mohammad Jameel …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Revision No. 801 of 1999 Union of India …Petitioner Versus Marium …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner-Union of India. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 titled as “Union of India v. Mohammad Jameel” and Criminal Revision No. 801 of 1999 titled as “Union of India v. Marium” will be decided together. T.K.Chaturvedi, Food Inspector, Northern Railway, Bathinda, Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, against Mohammad Jameel son of Kakka, vendor of Smt. Marium. Since Jameel was acting on behalf of Smt. Marium, she was also impleaded as respondent No.2. The complaint was instituted on 21.12.1994. In the complaint, it was stated that on 26.5.1994 at about 9.30 A.M., Food Inspector found Jameel vendor selling tea, biscuits, cakes, Bands (Round Toasts) at a stall situated outside the Railway Station, Malerkotla. Food Inspector revealed his identity and purchased Band's (toast’s) samples. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that samples of Bands (toasts) were not in consonance with the specifications under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was also found that the packets of Bands contained no label, therefore, Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) is contravened. On the filing of complaint, Mohd. Jameel and Smt. Marium were summoned to stand trial. The application was filed by the accused sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Report of the Central Food Laboratory supersede the report of the Public Analyst. The samples sent to the Central Food Laboratory could not be examined as the following report was submitted: “The contents of the bottle were discoloured due to mould growth. The sample was putrid thereby rendering it unfit for tests/analysis for the standards laid down for an article of food under the PFA Act, 1954 and Rules thereof.” Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 3 Third sample was again sent. Similar report was submitted by the Central Food Laboratory. Notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner. Mohd. Jameel accused filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The Sessions Judge, Sangrur, accepted the revision petition vide his judgment and order dated 22.1.1998 and observed as under:- “7. It was inter-alia ruled in 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 23 (P&H) Union Territory Chandigarh vs. Jamna Parshad, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports, 432 (P&H) Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. And 1987 (2) R.C.R. 193 (P&H) Om Parkash vs. The State of Punjab that if the right of the accused to get the second (or third) sample analyzed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory is defeated by no fault of the accused then the benefit should go to him and the report of the Public Analyst cannot be legitimately used as evidence against him. It may be stated even at the cost of repetition that the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to pinpoint any default or negligence on the part of the accused-petitioner in the present case. Therefore, following the ratio of the authority cited above the report of the Public Analyst cannot be legitimately be used against the accused-petitioner. If that be so, then there would be inadequate material to frame a charge under Section Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 4 7(1) or Section 16 of the Act, against the revision petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the learned trial Court appears to be illegal and so, it cannot be sustained. Consequently, this order is set aside and the revision petitioner is hereby discharged. Trial Court records be returned. File of this Court be consigned.” Aggrieved against the same, the Union of India had filed revision petition against Mohd. Jameel and Smt. Marium. Three fold submissions have been made by Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, appearing for Union of India. Firstly, the revision petition was defended by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Punjab, whereas Food Inspector, Northern Railway should have been given notice and opportunity to advance arguments. Secondly, even if it was held that report of Central Food Laboratory has to prevail and samples could not be tested, the offence was complete as accused had also contravened the provisions of Rule 32A of the Rules, as Bands/toasts were not having any label. Thirdly, it has been submitted that revision was preferred by only Mohd. Jameel and not by Smt. Marium. Therefore, by accepting the petition, Smt. Marium has also been given the benefit. As stated by counsel for Union of India, in the present case, only notice of accusation was served and no charge was framed, Criminal Revision No. 797 of 1999 5 thereby the case of petitioner was to be tried as a summons case and not as a warrant case. As per Section 16A of the Act maximum sentence which the Magistrate can pass, may extend to one year only. In the present case, samples of bands (toasts) were taken on 26.5.1994. About 15 years are going to elapse. Even if the order is set aside, entire trial will start afresh. Record shows that Mohd. Jameel was 60 years of age when he was discharged and Smt. Marium was aged 80 years. Petitioner Mohd. Jameel is son of Kaka and Smt. Marium is wife of Kaka. There was a delay of 224 days in filing the revision petition. It has been observed by Law Commission that in matter of discharge and acquittal, delay should not be lightly condoned as accused undertake various responsibilities in life, assuming their acquittal to be final. Right of speedy trial also vest in accused. Commencement of trial, in summons case where summary procedure is prescribed after fifteen years will be unfair and unjust to the accused. Be that as it may, after 15 years in a case of summary trial which is to be tried as a summons case, there is no reason to remand the matter to the trial Court. Hence, the present two revision petitions are dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 9, 2009 “DK”