Criminal Revision No. 455 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 455 of 1989 Date of Decision: 15.2.2011. Vishnu Bhagwan Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Athar Ahmed, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 27 th, 1989 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby he set-aside the judgment dated June 1 st, 1987 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction to try it as per provisions of Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and to pass sentence afresh, if necessary. The petitioner was tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. By judgment dated June 1 st, 1987, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred appeal which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge by order dated April 27 th, 1989 as stated aforesaid. Criminal Revision No. 455 of 1989 2 Indeed, the trial Court adopted procedure of warrant case from start of trial instead of summary trial. Considering that aspect of the matter, Additional Sessions Judge set-aside the judgment and remanded the case to the trial Court for passing decision afresh. Section 16-A of the Act provides that all offences under sub-Section (1) of Section 16 shall be tried in summary way by Judicial Magistrate First Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government. Since the procedure adopted by the trial Court was not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Section 16-A of the Act, in considered opinion of this Court, Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the judgment and remanding the case to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh after compliance of provisions of Section 16-A of the Act. In view of this, there is no reason to interfere. The revision petition is dismissed. 15.2.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE