MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADAN Singh, petitioner who is being prosecuted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City for an offence under sections 7, read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has moved this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr. PC for quashing of complaint dated 29-10-81. On 27-8-81 at 7.45 a.m. the Food Inspector had visited the premises the petitioner of the petitioner and from 8 kg of Desi Ghee, which the petitioner had exhibited for sale, a sample of 450 gms was taken. After performing due formalities, the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Haryana It was found to be adulterated, as it contained moisture 1.20% against the maximum standard of 0.5%. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was summoned and the case was started as a summons case. On 2-12-83, the Chief Judicial Magistrate converted the trial to one as a warrant case without recording reasons for this change. Since then the case has remained pending without any progress.

(2.) IT is conceded at the bar that an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was to be tried in a summary procedure. There is one proviso to this procedure and the same reads as under :

(3.) A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and anr. v. State of Bihar, 1986 Cri. LJ 1771 held that the right of a speedy trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A delay of seven years in an investigation and trial in a criminal case is the outer limit for concluding the proceedings in cases which are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death.