S.C. Datta, J. - This is a revision petition and it is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 28.10.1987 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to remit the case back to the learned Judicial Magistrate for fresh trial in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner Dhani Ram s/o Telu Ram faced trial before learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri on a charge under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1974. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the said Dhani Ram and to sentence him to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for a further period of three months. Appeal was taken to the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala who by his order dated 28.10.1987 set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the retrial of the accused in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge found that the learned Magistrate tried the case as it was one of a warrant case on a private complaint instead of trying the case in a summary manner. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the entire process of trial was in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 16(a) of the Act, thereby vitiating the trial. According to him Judicial Magistrate 1st Class especially empowered in this behalf by this Court is required to hold summary trial of the cases of instant nature. The learned Judicial Magistrate having not followed the procedure enshrined by the Statute and Notification made thereunder, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the conviction and to order re-trial of the case. As against the order of re-trial passed by learned Sessions Judge; the petitioner has come up in revision. It is contended that the Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the conviction, the order of sentence as there had been a complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. But the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in remanding the case back to the trial Court. It is stated that the speedy trial is a part of fundamental right of a citizen which cannot be taken away in any case. It is submitted that the sword of litigation is hanging on the petitioner since 21.12.1978 and there is an abnormal delay in concluding the trial. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner should be acquitted.

3. I have heard learned counsel of both the sides and considered the matter. According to the learned lawyer for the petitioner no standard is prescribed for Gajarpak by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or the rules framed thereunder. He submits that since no standard is prescribed for the seized article, it cannot be said that it was adulterated as per the report of the public analyst. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of a case reported in 1984(1) CLR 707. There is nothing on record to show that any standard has been prescribed for the article which has allegedly been seized by the Food Inspector and later found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. No such standard having been prescribed, it cannot be said that the seized article was an adulterated one. Therefore, the conviction of the present petitioner cannot be sustained.

4. The learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that the sword of criminal litigation is hanging over the head of the petitioner since 21.12.78 and there is abnormal delay in the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner deserves acquittal. It appears that the alleged seizure was effected on 21.12.78 and the trial by the learned Magistrate was concluded on 20.4.1987. Appeal was disposed of on 28.10.1987 and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to direct re-trial of the case on the ground that the learned Magistrate did not follow the prescribed procedure for trial of this type of case. As against the said order of re-trial the petitioner has moved this Court in revision and the matter is pending since then. Therefore, it appears that the matter is pending for more than sixteen years and during these years the petitioner must have incurred considerable expense and was subjected to tension and harassment. Accordingly, it would be fully unjust and prejudicial to permit him to undergo all these any further. During all these years he faced the agony of trial. Hence no useful purpose would be served by ordering re-trial of the matter inasmuch as evidence of the case that is required to be produced in this case has either been lost or be not available. The judgment of the Sessions Judge, remanding the case is accordingly set aside. In the interest of justice the entire proceeding is quashed and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted. This revision, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.

Petition allowed.