KUNARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the Criminal Case No. 12/94 (State v. Kunaram) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sojat City under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'P.F.A. Act). The petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of this case against him on the ground of delay in trial which violates his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE sample was taken on 30.4.1993. The charge -sheet was filed on 9.3.1993. The petitioner appeared in the court on 4.2.1994. He applied for the chemical examination of the second sample. The sample was sent and the report was received on 6.4.1994. The prosecution evidence commenced on 30.6.1994 but the first witness could be examined only on 28.10.1996 because summons were not issued by the office on five dates and on three dates the Presiding Officer was on leave. It is also relevant to note here that the Advocate were on strike on three dates. Thereafter charge was framed on 25.11.97 after five adjournments because the Presiding Officer was on leave and on one date Advocates were on strike. After framing the charge the case was listed for further cross -examination. Though the witness was present on 22.5.1998 but the case was adjourned due to sad demise of the father of Shri Jeevraj, Advocate. Sanwal Singh was further examined on 7.11.1998. Thereafter the case could not make progress because the Presiding Officer was on leave on two dates and on one date the work was suspended on account of the death of an Advocate. P.W. 2 Aadram was examined on 24.4.1999. Thereafter, also the Presiding Officer remained on leave on three dates and on two dates witness was not present.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1997 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 85 (Brahma Nand Agrawal and Anr. v. The State of Raj.) to support his contention that even delay of six years infringes the right to speedy trial. The facts of the case are not applicable because in the above case orders for denovo trial were passed and prosecution evidence had to be recorded denovo and the case was not making any progress; whereas in the instant case the case has made progress definitely as. de novo trial is not being conducted. Similarly the facts of the case Madan Singh v. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana) reported in 1991 (2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 859 are distinguishable because instead of summary trial warrant trial procedure was adopted for which the learned Magistrate did not assign any reason. The case was registered in the year 1983 and no evidence was recorded since 1984. In another case Gagan Das and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 (2) R.C.C. 589 though the case was registered in the year 1991, but only one witness was examined in six years. The sample was taken in the year 1987 and the complaint was filed with inordinate delay in the year 1991. In other case Kamal Kishore and Ors. v. State of Raj. 1998 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 298 the warrant trial was to be conducted but the learned trial court passed the order later on for trial by summary procedure even then on five dates witnesses did not turn up. The learned Counsel further relied on 1990 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 247 (Darshan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan). The facts of this case are also distinguishable because the accused was convicted by using the statements of the witnesses recorded during summary trial by the predecessor and it was an illegality under Section 326 Cr. P.C. resulting in the acquittal of the accused in appeal and remand for re -trial. This Court, in the above facts and circumstances, felt that it was not just and fair to require the accused to meet the charges now after a period of six years. The similar situation as stated above arose in Mahendra Singh Yadav v. State of Haryana 1991 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 588 and the order of remand after six years was set aside. In Pritam Singh v. The State of Haryana 1992 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 397 (Punjab and Haryana), it was found that the trial which was pending for about six years was liable to take more time and the delay of six years was caused due to change in procedure adopted by the trial court without any progress in the case.