DHARAMBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26.7.1982 at about 6.30 p.m. Food Inspector S.K. Sharma intercepted the premises of Dharambir petitioner at Rohtak Road, Sonepat. Dharambir was having about 10 kilograms of mixed milk for public sale. Milk was demanded for sample and notice in writing on Form IV prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was given. The milk was purchased for Rs. 2/-. It was divided into three equal parts. 18 drops of formalin 40% were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were stoppered and sealed. They were lebelled and then wrapped in strong thick paper. One sealed bottle which bears specimen thumb impression was sent to the public analyst. It was found to be adulterated. It is on these facts that a complaint was filed in the Court at Sonepat.

(2.) PETITIONER prima facie seeks to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings alleging that on 13.9.1987 after the evidence was recorded, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicted the petitioner and imposed a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Session at Sonepat. On 22.5.1989, the appeal was remanded for fresh trial by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat. After the case was remanded, it was adjourned for a number of times. On 20.12.1991, it was listed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat and keeping in view the provisions of Section 326(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court passed the following order :-

(3.) THE sole submission made at the time of arguments was that there has been inordinate delay. Almost 15 years have expired in the zig-zag procedural errors and still the trial is pending with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sonepat. It is still any body's guess as to how many more years might expire before the final judgment is to be pronounced. The Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 considered this question. By virtue of the said decision scope of Article 21 had been extended. It was held that expeditious disposal of the cases was an integral and essential part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty. In paragraph 5 it was held :-