RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 20th July, 1982, the Government Food Inspector inspected the premises of Ram Chander situated in village Siwana Mal Teh. Gohana, Distt Sonepat and found him having in his possession about 4 kgs of Chillies Powder for Public Sale. 450 gms of Chillies powder was purchased for analysis which was divided into three equal parts. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh who reported that the sample contained as insoluble in Hcl. 1.58% against the maximum prescribed of 1.30% and grit 1.02%. It also contained added oil soluble red coaltar whereas it should have been free from added colour of matter. On receipt of report, complaint was filed against Ram Chander, petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned on 19-10-1982. Preliminary evidence was recorded and he was charge sheeted for the first time on 15-4-1983. Thereafter, for nearly two years no prosecution witness was examined. Rather the case was transferred by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat for adopting summary procedure in the trial. Notice of allegations was served on the petitioner on 2-8-1985 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat who started the trial following summary procedure. The case was retransferred to Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Gohana on 23-8-1986 and no PW was examined during the duration of these three years. The trial of the case proceeded for four years without examining any witness. On 2-3-1990 an application was moved by the prosecution that as the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence was one year, so summary trial was bad in law. This application was allowed on 14-7-1990 and mode of trial was converted from summary to warrant procedure. Charge was again framed against the petitioner on 14-9-1990. The trial had not concluded yet. Thus on these averments the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings alleging that prolonged trial had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The case was pending for the last about ten years and only one prosecution witness had been examined. The delay was not attributable to him and continuation of trial in these circumstances was also violative of his fundamental right to have a reasonable speedy trial.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the State, it was maintained that as the trial Court was of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding one year could be passed, so it was undesirable to try the case summarily. Even otherwise summary procedure was less favourable to the accused than procedure for the trial of warrant case. It was contended that the trial was delayed by the petitioner himself as the petitioner remained absent from Court on several occasion. Moreover, three prosecution witnesses had already been examined.

(3.) THERE is no denial of the fact that right of speedy public trial is available in all criminal prosecutions irrespective of the nature of offence involved and that it is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A full bench of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 302 held that seven years delay in investigation and trial in a criminal case is the outer limit for concluding these proceedings in those cases which are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. It was further held that delay should not be due to the fault of the accused and exceptional reasons for such a delay should be given. In the instant case, the State has not given any specific date on which the petitioner absented himself from the Court and only vague averments were made that the petitioner absented himself from Court which resulted in delay. Rather it is made out that the delay in concluding the proceedings was due to the fact that the trial Court resortedto different procedure of trial from time to time. The State has filed no explanation as to why it took ten years to record the statements of four witnesses. In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990(1) RCR 672 the case remained pending for more than seven years and it was held that it resulted in miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court, besides the negation of the fundamental right of speedy trail to the petitioner. Considering the circumstances of the case, I find that there had been long and inordinately prolonged delay of ten years in the conclusion of the trial which violated the constitutional granted of speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.