The adoption of the warrant case procedure instead of a summary trial does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is caused to the accused.

1. :- On July 11, 1982 at 11.30 A.M. in the Railway Colony near Railway Station, Sawai Madhopur PW.1 Durga Prasad Sharma, Food Inspector, noticed the petitioner carrying mustard oil in two tins for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 375 ml. of the said oil for Rs. 4.20, prepared three samples therewith and sent one of the parts of the samples to the Public Analyst for examination. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the sample oil did not conform to the prescribed standard. He accordingly reported that the oil was adulterated. The Food Inspector obtained the requisite written consent from the prescribed Authority and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. On trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), convicted him as such and sentenced him to six months Rigorous Imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The conviction and sentence so recorded by the learned Magistrate against him having been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, the petitioner has approached this court in revision under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that since the procedure for a warrant case and not that of a summary case, as mandated by Section 16-A of the Act, was adopted in this case, the trial of the petition got vitiated and he deserves acquittal on this ground alone.

3. It is true that 16-A requires that all offences punishable uls. 16(1) of the Act should be tried in a summary way, but the second Proviso to this Section confers upon the Magistrate the power to adopt the procedure of a warrant case in appropriate cases. Trial of offences in a summary way was stressed upon by the legislature to achieve the objective of speedy trial looking to the gravity of the offence. It can hardly be disputed .that the procedure of a warrant trial involves a lengthy process and is undoubtedly more beneficial to an accused than the summary trial. Therefore, unless it is shown that prejudice has occasioned to the accused by adopting the procedure of a warrant case, the trial cannot be declared as vitiated on the mere ground that summary trial procedure ought to have been adopted.

4. In the instant case on the very first date, after putting in appearance by the petitioner before him, the learned Magistrate had indicated the adoption of the procedure of a warrant case by directing that pre-charge evidence shall be recorded on the next date. The petitioner raised no objection either at that stage or at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. No prejudice was shown or even pointed out to me to have occasioned to the petitioner by adopting the procedure of a warrant case in his trial. I, therefore, find no force in this argument and reject the same.

5. It was next urged by Mr. Bhargava that the testimony of the three witnesses, examined in this case was not reliable in as much as they had contradicted each other as to the exact place, the petitioner was found at carrying mustard oil in tins. It was submitted that the evidence produced was not only partial but has also not been rightly appreciated by the Courts below. Wain, I do not find any merits in this argument too.

6. It is the settled position of law that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code this Court should not upset and reverse the concurrent findings of the court below unless such findings are perverse and not borne out of the evidence on record. In the instant case, both the courts below, after examining the evidence of the three witnesses, namely PW.1 Durga Prasad Sharma, PW.2 Kishan and PW.3 Deen Mohd., have concurrently held that the Food Inspector had purchased the sample oil from the petitioner in the Railway Colony near the Railway Station, Sawai Madhopur. I have l