SHANTI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHANTI Lal petitioner herein by means of this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of the criminal complainant dated 4.10.1982, Annexure P -1, charge -sheet dated 27.11.1986, Annexure P -4, amended charge -sheet dated 15.3.1991, Annexure P -5 and consequential proceedings pending in the Court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate Gohana.

(2.) COMPLAINANT under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was instituted in the Court of Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, on 3.6.1981. It was dismissed in default for non -appearance of the complainant on 19.2.1983 and the accused was discharged. No revision petition against the said order was filed. However, a fresh complaint on the identical allegations as contained in the previous complaint was filed on 4.10.1982. The same was dismissed in default vide order of 19.4.1983, Annexure P -12. On revision petition having been filed by the complainant, the complaint was restored vide order of 1.10.1983. Therefore, the accused -petitioner was re -summoned. Charge was framed on 27.11.1986. Amended charge was framed on 15.3.1991. Original charge sheet dated 27.11.1986 is Annexure P -4 and the amended charge -sheet dated 15.3.1991 is Annexure P -5. The case was being adjourned from one date to another for prosecution evidence but no witness could be examined till date.

(3.) THE State was served. Rely has been filed on their behalf. In para No. 7 of the reply, it is submitted that on the last date of hearing, the prosecution witness was present in the Court but could not be Cross -examined due to strike of the Advocates. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this stand -behalf of the complainant is wrong. Be that as it may the fact remains that as many as five last opportunities were allowed to the prosecution to lead its entire evidence, as mentioned in para No. 7 of the affidavit of the petitioner. I have no reason to dis -believe the said part of the affidavit. The prosecution has not been able to examine even one single witness for the last more than 10 years. In Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. v. R.S. Nayak and another, 1992(1) All India Criminal L.R. 1 their lordships of the Supreme Court formulated the following propositions as guidelines, though they were not to be exhaustive : - "1. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Articles 21 of Constitution creates a right in accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also a public interest or that it serves the social interest also does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. 2. Right to Speedy Trial following from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re -trial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restrict view. 3. The concerns underlying the right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are : - (a) The period of remand and pre -conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incorrection prior to this conviction. (b) the worry, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal, and (c) undue delay may result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself. Whether on account of death, disappearance or non -availability of witness or otherwise."