The court's decision was influenced by the lack of justification for a de-novo trial after a significant period and with lacunae in the prosecution case.

1. - This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi dated 29.3.93, whereby after completion of full trial he has ordered for summary trial.

2. The petitioner is running a firm M/s. Madholal Ghanshyam Lal at Bundi. On 26.10.83 at 4.30 p.m. Food Inspector Shri Munna Lal Verma took sample of Solvent extracted refined ground nut oil from a tin. The complaint was filed after sanction from the competent Authority in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi on 3.5.84. The petitioner summoned through bailable warrants. The charges were framed and during trial the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. On 29.3.93, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order stating therein that this is a case of summary trial, therefore, trial be started de-novo and all the witnesses should be re-summoned.

3. Being dis-satisfied with the order of the trial court the petitioner has filed this Misc. Petition and prayed that the incident took place, as back as, in the year 1983 and now we are in the year 1993. Ten years have already passed, if this type of orders are allowed there will be no end of trial. The petitioner will be dragged unnecessarily in this case, for no fault on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a petty shop-keeper and no licence is required under Rule 50 and, there is no violation of any condition of the Food Control Order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P., for State. The facts stated above are not controverted by the learned P.P. It is shocking and surprising that after lapse of a period of ten years, and after examining the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has realised its mistake that it was not proper to conduct the trial as warrant case, but it is a case of summary trial and re-summoned the witnesses. It will be, certainly, against the interest of justice and abuse of process of Court. Considering the nature of the offence and sentence provided for this offence, further considering the proceedings in this case, I do not find any justification to uphold the impugned order.

5. When the petitioner has been dragged for ten years and his case was tried as warrant case, while the case is of summary trial and, there arc also some lacunae in the prosecution case. Considering the facts of the case, there is no justification to have de-novo trial and re-summon all the witnesses, for such a petty offence. Therefore, the Criminal Proceedings, in this case arc dropped.

6. Consequently, the Miscellaneous petition is allowed.

*******