2013 (7) TMI 1183 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of conducting the trial as a warrant triable case instead of a summary trial.
2. Applicability of section 16A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA).
3. Impact of procedural irregularities on the validity of the trial.

Summary:

1. Legality of Conducting the Trial as a Warrant Triable Case:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.1.2013 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, and the revisional order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Una, which confirmed the trial as a warrant triable case instead of a summary trial. The petitioner argued that the trial should have been conducted summarily as per section 16A of the PFA. The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge observed that the case had been tried as a warrant triable case with full participation from the accused and his advocate, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

2. Applicability of Section 16A of the PFA:
Section 16A of the PFA mandates summary trials for offences under section 16(1), unless the Magistrate, after hearing the parties, records an order to conduct the trial otherwise. The petitioner argued that no such order was passed, making the warrant triable procedure illegal. The court noted that section 16A is an enabling provision and not mandatory, allowing discretion to the Magistrate to opt for a non-summary trial if deemed necessary. The court emphasized that the summary procedure aims for quicker resolution, but a detailed warrant trial provides better defense opportunities for the accused.

3. Impact of Procedural Irregularities on the Validity of the Trial:
The court examined whether the failure to follow summary procedure without recording reasons vitiates the trial. It concluded that such procedural deviations are curable irregularities under section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. The court held that the petitioner, who participated in the trial without objection until the end, cannot claim prejudice due to the non-summary procedure. The court also highlighted that the previous Magistrate was not authorized to conduct a summary trial, validating the non-summary procedure adopted.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial conducted as a warrant triable case, despite procedural deviations from section 16A of the PFA, did not vitiate the proceedings. The court emphasized the curable nature of such irregularities and the absence of prejudice to the accused.