KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has arisen out of the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 305/1987 (State v. Kishan and another) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat whereby the petitioner has prayed for the quashment of the proceedings under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short 'the P.F.A. Act').

(2.) The brief facts are that a sample of 'Namkeen' was taken from the petitioner on 19-5-87 and a charge sheet was submitted on 13-7-87 against the petitioner and Smt. Shiva Bai. Orders were passed to issue summons to procure the attendance of the petitioner. The process continued to be issued up to 26-7-89 for about two years. The petitioner appeared on 28-7-89 and filed an application for sending the sample to F.S.L. Thereafter, the summons were issued to procure the attendance of Smt. Shiva Bai. Summons were not issued or served up to 22-5-93. It was reported on the summons on 29-7-93 that Smt. Shiva Bai had gone to Gujarat a year back and the address is not known. The learned trial Court ordered to issue standing warrants and also to initiate the proceedings under Section 82, Cr. P.C. the petitioner was directed to deposit the fees for analysis of the second sample. Sample was not received by the Court till 30-6-94. The sample was received after five years. The sample was sent for chemical analysis on 4-8-94 and the report was received on 17-2-95. Thereafter, the case was listed on 3-4-95 for pre-charge evidence. The accused remained absent on 6-1-98 and surrendered in the Court on 8-7-98. Again the case was listed for pre-charge evidence and the case is now pending for recording prosecution evidence. Order sheets dated 21-8-99 and 15-9-99 show that the case is still pending for pre-charge evidence and only the statement of P. N. Monga, Food Inspector has been recorded by the trial Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner at the relevant time was a petty trolley man at the Railway platform and he is facing trial for the last over 12 years and still pre-charge evidence has not been completed. Thus the trial is likely to take a long time to complete because the prosecution is not keen in producing the witnesses by serving the summons. This has resulted in infringement of the petitioner's right to speedy trial, which is not considered a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the petitioner has suffered a lot and the proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument on two grounds; firstly the prosecution is not responsible for the delay in this case because the co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai could not be served and proceedings under Section 82, Cr. P.C. were initiated. Moreover, it is a case of adulteration i. e. offence of a serious nature. The quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner is bound to affect the trial against Smt. Shiva Bai, who has not yet appeared in the Court.