Supreme Court of India
RADHEY SHYAM AGGARWALversusSTATE N.C.T. DELHI
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 115
- Decided
- 6 February 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Section 16‑A does not make a summary trial mandatory; the magistrate may lawfully try the case as a warrant case after hearing the parties, and no prejudice was shown.
Summary
The appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulterating a small quantity of red chilli. The trial magistrate conducted the case as a warrant case, although Section 16‑A of the Act provides for a summary trial of such offences. The appellant argued that the summary‑trial provision is mandatory and that the trial court’s procedure violated the statute, seeking relief. The Supreme Court held that Section 16‑A is not mandatory; a magistrate may order a regular trial after hearing the parties if the case appears to require a longer sentence or for other reasons, and no prejudice was shown by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, but the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served and discharged the bail bonds.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 16‑A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 makes a summary trial mandatory for offences under that section.
- Whether the trial court’s adoption of the warrant‑case procedure violated the provisions of Section 16‑A.
- Whether the appellant suffered any prejudice due to the trial procedure adopted.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 262, s. 263, s. 264, s. 265
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16-A
Subjects
summary trialwarrant casePrevention of Food Adulteration ActSection 16-Acriminal procedureprejudicesentencingappeal
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 965
_,_--+- RADHEY SHYAM AGGARWAL A
v.
STATE N.C.T. DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No.423 of 2002)
FEBRUARY 6, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954:
c
S. 16-A - Provision for summary trial - Trial Court
adopting warrant case procedure - Correctness of - Held:
Plea raised for the first time in SLP - No prejudice shown -
Hence no violation of requirements of s. 16A - However, as
the occurrence took place nearly two years back and D
t
infractions related to a small quantity, sentence reduced to
the period already undergone - Constitution of India, 1950
~ Article 136 - New plea.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No.423 of 2002. E
From the final Order dated 22.2.2001 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 77/2001.
S.K. Divakar and S.R. Seita for the Appellant.
F
S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sudha Pal and Anil Katiyar for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. The only point urged in this
appeal is that the High Court ought to have held that the
provisions of Section 16-A of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') providing for
summary trial are mandatory. While In the instant case the trial
965 H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A Court adopted the warrant case procedure.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that no prejudice has been shown by the appellant
and in any event there is no absolute bar on the Court to
adopting warrant procedure in a given case.
8
3. Section 16-A of the Act reads as follows:
"16-A. Power of Court to try cases summarily. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
c Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), all offences under
sub-section (1) of Sec.16 shall be tried in a summary way
by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially
empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by
a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sec. 262
D to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as
may be, apply to such trial: t
Provided that In the case of any conviction in a !I
summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the
Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term
E not exceeding one year :
Provided further that when at the commencement of,
or in the course of a summary trial under this section, It
appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is
F such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other
reason, undesirable to try the case summarily the
Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order
to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may
G have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the
case in the manner provided by the said Code."
4. From the order of the trial Court it is clear that the case
was proceeded in the manner provided for trial of warrant cases
and the prosecution was directed to lead pre charge evidence
H and such evidence was led. At no stage there was any
•
RADHEY SHYAM AGGARWAL v. STATE N.C.T. 967
DELHI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
#-f.. challenge to the procedure adopted. In fact second proviso to A
Section 16-A permits such a course to be adopted.
5. It is the case of the appellant that the Magistrate had
not heard the parties and/or recorded an order to the effect that
the case was such that sentence of imprisonment for a term
B
exceeding one year may have to be passed.
6. As noted above, this was not the case of the appellant
at any stage and for the first time in the Special Leave Petition
such a stand was taken.
c
7. Additionally, as rightly contended by learned counsel for
the State no prejudice has been shown. In that view of the matter
we are not inclined to accept the stand that there was any
violation of the requirements of Section 16-A of the Act.
However, we find that the occurrence took place nearly two D
decades back and the infractions related to a small quantity of
'lal mirch'. The sentence imposed is 15 months. It is accepted
that the appellant has already suffered custody for more than a
year. That being so, in the peculiar circumstances of the case
we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Bail
E
bonds executed for giving effect to the order for bail dated
11.2.2002 shall stand discharged. With the aforesaid
modification of sentence the appeal is disposed of.
.Ir G.N. Appeal disposed of.
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "summary trial"Sign in to search