BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, prayer made is for quashing ofcomplaint dated 14.10.1981 (Annexure P -1) under Section 16 (1) (a) (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) together with proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging that Food Inspector intercepted the petitioner on 22.8.1981 in the area of B.C. Bazar, Ambala near Arya Girls High School along with Dr. H.S. Goshal and found in possession of the petitioner, 15 litres of cows milk for public sale contained in a drum. It was further alleged that the Inspector issued notice to the petitioner in Form VI and purchased 660 ml. of milk on payment, which was divided into equal parts and put in dry and empty bottles. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana who, on analysis, found the sample to be adulterated. On presentation of the complaint on 15.10.1981, the trial Court summoned the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted to bail. After recording of preliminary evidence, the petitioner was ordered to be charged and charge - sheet was framed against the petitioner on 25.3.1986. After the charge was framed, prosecution evidence was recorded and when the case was at the final stage, learned trial Court on 6. 1988, after hearing the Food Inspector formed an opinion that the case be tried as a summons case and notice under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act was issued and case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 22.11.1988. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of the prosecution for 24.1.1989, 7.3.1989, 28.3.1989, 28.3.1990, 1.5.1990, 1990, 25.9.1990, 6.11.1990, 8.1.1991, 4.3.1991, 7.5.1991, 23.7.1991, 10.9.1991, 5.10.1991, 22.11.1991, 14.1.1992, 29.5.1992, 31.7.1992, 6.3.1993, 6.4.1993 and 8.5.1993. When the evidence of the prosecution was closed, case was adjourned for the statement of the petitioner which was recorded on 29.5.1993. Case was then fixed for defence and arguments. Ultimately, the trial Court, at the time of hearing arguments on 3.6.1995, again decided to try the case as a warrant case by saying that since the accused could be sentenced for a period of more than one year, therefore, it would be proper to try the case as a warrant case. Complainant was again ordered to be summoned for 22.7.1995 for pre -charge evidence. The quashing of the complaint and the proceedings taken thereon has been sought on the ground that by adopting the procedure by the trial Court of firstly trying the case as a warrant case, summary case and then again as a warrant case. the fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial under article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been infringed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the complaint and the proceedings in this case deserve to be quashed. Time and again, has been held by the Courts that quick justice is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Keeping a person in suspended animation for almost 14 years without any cause at all and none attributed to the petitioner, cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. The complaint in question was filed on 15.10.1981 and the case was firstly tried as a warrant case. When the trial had come to an end, the learned Magistrate decided to try it as a summons case and when the case reached the final stage, the case has again been ordered to be tried as a warrant case without any fault of the petitioner. In view of the procedure having been changed thrice, petitioner may be right in entertaining the doubt that the prosecution may now fill in all the lacunae to the prejudice of the petitioner.