LAJPAT RAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by Lajpat Rai. Petitioner was running a shop, when on 16th September, 1986 at 9.00 a.m., Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and bought the sample of Haldi Sabut. The sample was sent to the public analyst. As per the report of public analyst, the sample was not in accordance with the specifications laid in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. On 2nd May, 1997, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court and had maintained the conviction and sentence.

(3.) HE has also placed reliance upon another single Bench judgment Des Raj v. State of Haryana, 1995(XXII) Criminal Law Times (482), which reads as under : "9. Now, it is well settled that the right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Fundamental rights are not a teasing illusion to be mocked at. These are meant to be enforced and made a reality. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any-theless right of the accused. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. This is how the courts shall understand this right; and have gone to the extent of quashing the prosecution after such inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 8 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 10. An identical question had arisen before the apex Court in Braham Dass's case (supra), wherein their lordship were pleased to observe as under : 'Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter.' This view was followed by this Court in Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, and Ishwar Singh's case (supra). The present case is fully covered by the view expressed by the apex Court and by this Court in the judgments cited above and I have no reason to differ therewith. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act is hereby maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already faced the agony of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of eight years, his sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. Sentence of fine is, however maintained along with its default clause."