IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.132 of 1996 Date of Decision: 22.02.2008. State of Punjab .......Petitioner versus Kewal Krishan .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) Present revision petition is directed by the State of Punjab against the discharge of respondent in a complaint filed by Neelam Kumar, Food Inspector bearing complaint No.45 dated 06.10.1993. Briefly stated that Neelam Kumar, Food Inspector had inspected the premises of the accused on 22.06.1993 and found him in possession of 15 dozen of Ferryman Synthetic vinegar. It is stated that Food Inspector purchased three bottles of 750 mls. of Ferryman Synthetic vinegar from the accused-respondent. The samples were sent to the public analyst who opined that the bottles are not labelled as required under Rule 32(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur after going through the contents of the complaint, report of the public analyst has held as under:- “In the light of the above discussion, I am constrained to hold that the month and year of the manufacture having been displayed on the sample purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused, no violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be held to Criminal Revision No.132 of 1996 --2-- have been committed by the accused. Hence I find no prima facie case for service of notice upon the accused. The complaint dismissed and the accused is discharged”. Learned counsel appearing for the State has urged that the year and month had not been mentioned at the place which is meant on the label but though has been found on the label but not in the column meant for the same. It has been submitted by the Registry of this Court that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, has sent a communication dated 01.06.2007, to the effect that as per the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, the record has been destroyed under the supervision of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 10.01.2004. This Court is unable to examine the label. Even otherwise, the record has been destroyed after 15 years of the occurrence therefore, right of speedy trial is vested in the accused-respondent. It will be futile exercise to re- construct the record. Exercising powers under the Revisional Court, this Court is of the opinion that the findings returned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, that no violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has taken place is probable and justifiable. Therefore, no interference is called for and the present revision petition is dismissed. February 22, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE