MADANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. arises out of the Cr. Case No. 18/90 (State v. Madanlal) under S. 7 read with S. 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'P.F.A. Act') pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said proceedings on the ground of delay in trial.

(2.) The facts necessary to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that Food Inspector Sanwal Singh took the samples of chilli powder from the shop of the petitioner on 9-6-89 and submitted a complaint on 11-1-90. The case was adjourned to receive the second sample from 7-3-90 to 4-8-93. The second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory on 14-10-1993 and the report was received on 23-2-94. Order was passed for warrant procedure and the case was fixed for recording pre-charge prosecution evidence by order dated 17-11-94. The witnesses were not present from 13-3-95 to 11-2-98 though during this period the case was also adjourned three times due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer. Ultimately P.W. 1 Sanwal Singh was examined on 6-4-98. The case was further fixed for recording further prosecution evidence. P.W. 2 Hari Bhajan was examined on 15-10-98 and the charge was framed on 2-12-98. Now the case is pending for recording the prosecution evidence but the prosecution witnesses are not appearing in the Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution has not completed its evidence during the last ten years. The prosecution has failed to produce its witnesses in Court despite several adjournments. The petitioner is regularly attending the Court for the last ten years and has undergone all sorts of physical and mental harassment and also suffered loss of money. The right of the petitioner to the speedy trial interpreted as fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India by Hon'ble Supreme Court has been violated and the proceedings may be quashed. The learned public prosecutor has opposed this contention and urged that the prosecution is not at fault and now directions may be given to the learned trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the case within a specified time.