PRABHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 1242/89 under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'P.F.A. Act') pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on the ground of delay in trial.

(2.) The facts necessary to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that a complaint was filed against the petitioners on 19-12-89. They appeared in the Court on 4-1-90 and order was passed to send the second sample by the office for Chief Medical and Health Officer, Banswara on 18-1-90. Sample was received on 8-6-90 and it was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for chemical examination and the report was received on 22-9-90. The Court commenced the prosecution evidence. Thereafter the case was fixed for framing the charge on 12-8-92 which was adjourned up to 21-12-93 for the same purpose. The trial Court ordered the trial by warrant procedure on 22-3-94. A charge under Section 7 read with 16, P.F.A. Act was levelled on 6-12-94. The prosecution evidence began on 31-1-95 but witnesses was not present from 28-2-95 to 17-11-97 i.e. on 19 dates between the period 28-2-95 to 17-11-97. On 9-1-98 the learned trial Court passed another order for trial of the case by summary procedure and the case was adjourned for 3 dates for explaining the accusation to the petitioners. The case could hardly make progress that an order was passed on 3-12-98 for de novo trial and the accusation was stated to the petitioners on 21-1-99. Again the witnesses did not appear on 7 dates from 11-3-99 to 16-9-99. Learned Public Prosecutor filed an application on 29-9-99 that the case may be ordered to be tried by warrant procedure. The petitioners have filed certified copies of the order-sheets.

(3.) The petitioners' counsel has raised the argument that the trial Court passed orders for de novo trial and still the trial is pending to record the prosecution evidence and the witnesses are not attending the Court. The complaint was filed on 19-12-89 and the accused petitioners are regularly attending the Court and the delay has not resulted for any fault on the part of the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed and application for trial under warrant procedure which means that the case is likely to take a long time. The protracted trial against the petitioners for the last ten years without even completion of the prosecution evidence infringes the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the continuation of these proceedings now is abuse of the process of law, which deserve to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the case against the petitioners is for adulteration in the milk under Section 7 read with 16 P.F.A. Act which is a serious offence. The delay has resulted on account of the procedure regarding de novo trial under the summary procedure and the prosecution cannot be held in any manner responsible for the same. It is further argued that a specific time may be prescribed and the learned trial Court may be directed to complete the trial.