# of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Bill, 1979 which has been notified as U.P. Act No

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 150/VII-c-3
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1979-12-21
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 150/VII-c-3
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/of-offences-and-abatement-of-trials-bill-1979-which-has-been-notified-as-u-p-163515
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

312
C.L. No. 150/VII-c-3 dated 27th December, 1979

It invites attention to section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition
of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Bill, 1979 which has been notified as U.P. Act No.
35 of 1979 published in U.P. Gazette Extra-ordinary as Government Notification No.
3378/XVII-v-1-37/78 dated December 21, 1979 on the same date and says that all the
criminal courts should take immediate action in accordance with the aforesaid provision.

The provision of section 9 of the aforesaid Act is quoted below for ready
reference:-
Section 9 - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force -
(1)
the trial of an accused for -
(a) an offence punishable under -
(i) the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; or
a.
the Public Gambling Act, 1867, not being an offence punishable
under Section 3 of that Act or an offence in respect of wagering
punishable under Section 13 of that Act; or
(ii) Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, or
(iii)Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; or
(b) any other offence punishable with fine only, or
(2)
a proceeding under section 107 or section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, pending before a Magistrate on the date of commencement of this Act from before
January 1, 1977 shall abate.

Every criminal court should pass order of abatement immediately and intimation
of order may be given either by post or on the date fixed in the case.
As modified by C.L. No. 51/IV h -36 dated 10th March, 1977

In petty cases, where the facility of stenographer is available, the Presiding
Officer should be encouraged to dictate judgment in open court.
C.L. No. 8/IV f-80 Admn. A dated 18th February, 1981

Magisterial courts should try to dispose of cases involving petty offences on
priority basis, so that the number of pending criminal cases may be reduced and for this
purpose, they may have mixed cause list in which cases involving serious and petty
offences should both be fixed daily.
C. L. No-36/2007: Admin 'G' Dated: 29 August, 2007.

Taking stock of the staggering pendency of criminal cases the Hon'ble Court has
decided that urgent Steps are required to be taken for reduction of arrears and speedy
disposal of cases and consequently has resolved that Cases involving petty offences,
including traffic and municipal challans, be transferred to the Court of special
Metropolitan Magistrates/ Special judicial Magistrates.

Therefore, in continuation of earlier court's circular letter no. 47/Admin. ̳G'/2006
dated Feb. 15th, 2006 I am directed to say that the cases involving petty offences,
313
including traffic and municipal challans be transferred to the Courts of Special Judicial
magistrate/ Special Metropolitan magistrate for their expeditious disposal.
(ix)
Food adulteration cases
C.L. No. 116/Admn.(B) dated 6th September, 1975

As regards trial of food adulteration cases, the appearance of the accused should
be secured quickly so that he may have opportunity to get a sample sent to the Central
Food Laboratory, Calcutta for examination and no dates should be fixed in such cases
without such an opportunity being given to the accused. Further, it may be so arranged
that public servant such as Food Inspector may not have to attend the court every day and
to wait unnecessarily. This can be done if the food adulteration cases are taken up by one
Magistrate and all such cases in which the same Food Inspector has to give evidence are
fixed on the same day.
C.E. No. 19/VII f-227 Admn.(F) dated 8th February, 1980

It encloses Government of India letter no. P/15025/99/79 PH (F &N) PFA dated
7.12.79 and requires all the District Judges to bring the following points to the notice of
Judicial Magistrates empowered to try cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act:-
(i)
The original memo in Form I along with specimen impression of seal is
not sent separately and sometimes is not complete in all respects.
(ii)
Seals applied on the package are not easily identifiable.
(iii)
The challan to the effect that necessary fee has been deposited, is not
enclosed.
(iv)
Sample containers are not generally affixed with court seals. Seals are
fixed on the parcel, which get damaged during transit.
(v)
Distinguishing number is not marked on the container as well as the cover.
(vi)
Samples are sent by ordinary post and not by registered post as required
under the PFA Rules.
(vii)
Samples containers/packets do not have any court seals affixed on them.
They bear only the Food Inspectors seals. Such sample containers are put
in a parcel having court seals on the outside packing only. Sometimes all
court seals on the parcel are received broken in transit and none remain
which can be compared with specimen impression of seal.
The above omission and commissions lead to avoidable delays in the submission of
reports of analysis by the central food laboratories.

The concerned courts, authorized to try food adulteration cases, may kindly be
suitably advised to comply with the procedures as laid down under Section 13 of the PFA
Act. The procedure inter alia lays down that the courts shall first ascertain that the mark
and seal or fastening is intact and the signatures are not tampered with. One of the samples
be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, under the court's seal. A copy of the
memo and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover shall
be sent separately by registered post to Director, Central Food Laboratory. Form 1