Article 21 of the Constitution mandates expeditious trial and disposal of appeals and revisions. Fairness to the accused demands reduction of sentence in cases of prolonged delay.

VS. Aggarwal, J.

1. Petitioner was tried by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Chandigarh with respect to offence punishable under Sections 7 (1) read with Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act ). He was held guilty of the abovesaid offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 . In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 20.4.1987 dismissed the appeal as a result of the same the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The prosecution case can be briefly listed to be that in 23.1.1980 at 9.30 A. M. the petitioner was intercepted by Food Inspector Hazara Singh in Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. Petitioner was carrying 20 kilograms of unindicated milk for sale in a drum. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the petitioner in the presence of Arjun Singh. A notice (Ex. PA) was served on the petitioner expressing the intention to purchase milk for purposes of analysis.660 ml. of indicated milk was purchased after stirring. Payment was made against a receipt Ex. PB. The milk was divided into 3 equal parts and converted into 3 dry and clean bottles.18 drops of formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. Thereafter the bottles were stoppered, labelled and sealed. One of the bottles alongwith memo of Form VII bearing specimen seal impression was sent to the Public Analyst. On analysis contents of the sealed sample were found to be adulterated. Milk was found to be deficient in milk fat and milk solids by 2.8% and 996. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate had framed a charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec.7 (1) read with Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. Petitioner had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, besides examining the Food Inspector also produced Surinder Kumar as a witness. Petitioner was examined in terms of Sec.313 Cr. P. C. and incriminating evidence was put to him. The entire evidence, as such was denied. As referred to above, the learned Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the abovesaid offence and convicted him. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed. This led to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. At the outset it was urged that earlier a complaint was filed which had been dismissed for non-prosecution and the second complaint is not maintainable. The fact that earlier a complaint was filed, which was dismissed for non-prosecution has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Therefore, the short question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the second complaint basically on the same facts could be filed or not. This question had been considered and answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar V/s. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. The Supreme Court held that the second complaint is not barred. In paragraph 48 as it was held: An order of dismissal under Sec.203, Criminal Procedure Code is. However, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e. g. , where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into. To insist that special reasons must be stated, would not be a sine-qua