LAWS(CAL)-1993-1-16

RAM TRADING AND SUPPLY CO Vs. STATE

Decided On January 05, 1993
SREE RAM TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question falling for consideration here is whether in cases instituted otherwise than on police report a Magistrate can allow continuation of further proceedings beyond four years from the date of appearance of the accused if all the evidence referred to in section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) are not produced in support of the prosecution without being satisfied by the prosecution that upon the evidence already produced and for special reasons there is ground for presuming that it shall not be in the interest of justice to discharge the accused in view of the amended provisions of section 245 (3) (of the Code). The question arises in the facts and circumstances hereunder stated.

(2.) On 20th March, 1985 a Food Inspector of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had inspected the godown of the petitioner-accused Shyam Sundar Sharma at P-185, Strand Road, Calcutta, who had found an article of food, viz. salt (edible) stored/exposed for sale for human consumption. The said Food Inspector purchased some sample of the said salt from the petitioners after due compliance with all the requisite formalities. The Food Inspector had sent one part of the said sample of salt to the Public Analyst upon analysis had opined that the said sample of salt does not conform to the standard in respect of matter insoluble in water (on day basis), which was thus reported to be adulterated. The Food Inspector had thereupon filed a complaint against the petitioners-accused and another before the Senior Municipal Magistrate, 1st Court, Calcutta on 29.7.85 under section 16(1) (a)(ii)/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the alleged offence, and had issued process all the accused persons named in the complaint. On receiving summons, the accused persons had appeared before the learned Magistrate on 25th August, 1986, when they were released on bail. The learned Magistrate had fixed the case on 18.12.86 for evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The hearing of the case had thereafter been adjourned on 18.12.86, 24.3.87, 22.6.87 and 7.9.87 as no P.W. was produced by the prosecution.

(3.) During the carriage of the proceedings, the prosecution had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate on 14.12.87 praying that the accused should not be allowed to cross-examine the P.Ws. before charge. One formal witness was, however, examined by the Magistrate on that date on the assurance by the defence that they would not cross-examine the witness. The said petition was thereafter posted for hearing, which had been adjourned from time to time. In the meantime a petition has been filed on behalf of the accused No. 2 for discharge under section 245(2) of the Code on 16.3.88 which was disposed of by the learned Magistrate on 30.9.88, allowing the petition and discharging the accused No. 2 thereunder. The petition filed by the prosecution on 14.12.87 was eventually rejected by the teamed Magistrate his order dated 27.4.89. Even thereafter the hearing of the case had to be adjourned from time to time as no P.W. could be produced by the prosecution. A petition was thereafter filed by the remaining two accused persons, the petitioners herein, on 14.1.91 under section 245(3) of the Code for their discharge. The said petition heard by the learned Magistrate on 11.4.91 and was rejected by him by his order dated 19.4.91 for the reasons recorded therein, fixing 7.6.91 for appearance of the accused and for examination of all the remaining P.Ws. before charge.