NABI MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHEM Karan, J. Heard Sri R. Mur taza holding brief of Sri I. Murtaza, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Brijendra Singh, the learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

(2.) THE petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Ilnd Additional Chief Magistrate (Economic Offence), Raebareli in criminal case No. 1191 of 1992 under Sec tion 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adultera tion Act, 1954.

(3.) THIS case appears to be one in which it could be said that the prosecution case has become vitiated, on account of cellous attitude of the prosecuting agency, in not responding to the orders of the Court and in not making the sample avail able to the Court so as to be sent for re-analysis. After lapse of a number of years, must have rendered unfit, for re-analysis. There was no fault on the part of the accused in exercising his option. Soon after the filing of the complaint in the Court he excused his option. The prosecu tion has not taken trouble to inform the Court as to what was the difficulty, in providing the sample to the Court for being sent to the Central Food Laboratories. The Food Inspector who is arrayed as opposite par /no. 2 in this petition, has not cared for assisting the Court and putting the circumstance which prevented him or the health authority from producing the sample, for the pur poses of beingsent to the Central Food Laboratories. The matter is now 14 years old. It is well settle that speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights. The apex Court has issued general directions for closing for certain types of cases. The State Coun sel says that in spite of his various letters to the Chief Medical Officer, Raebareli none came to apprise him of the circumstances, which prevented the Food Inspector or the other authorities from producing the sample for re-analysis, I am of the view that denial of right under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, is bound to fail the prosecution and there is no use in keeping alive such a proceeding. To allow the prosecution to go on may result in unnecessary harass ment and humiliation of the accused. The criminal proceeding referred to above deserves to be quashed and so this petition is allowed and the criminal proceeding of Case N o. 1191 of 1992 under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are hereby quashed.