AMRITLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dated Oct. 9, 1985, the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, had stopped the proceedings under Sec. 258, Crimial P.C. as the complaint filed under Sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not by a duly authorised person. The State filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, who by the judgment dated July 24, 1989, reversed the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and has remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, with a direction to proceed with the trial.

(2.) The case is more than 12 years old. The accusations against the accused are that he delayed the payment of tax relating to the years 1974-75 to 1977-78. Sec. 16(8) of the Act provides that a person shall not be proceeded against for any offence under sub-sections (2) and (3) except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf. Counsel for the accused submits that the complaint in the present case was not filed with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner who was the person authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf, but by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. He has further contended that the complaint was not presented even by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer but by the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was not duly authorised to conduct the case under the Sales Tax Act.

(3.) In my opinion, the delay alone in putting the accused to trial is sufficient to stop the proceedings. As already a noticed, the default relates to the period 1974-75 to 1977-78. The complaint was filed on Sept. 1, 1984. A period of 12 years has by now elapsed. It would not be fair and just to ask the accused to meet the charges relating to the default that took place 12 years back. Quick trial is an essential element of fair justice. In a period of 12 years, relevant evidence might have disappeared or lost. Therefore, it would not be just and proper to put the accused to trial now after such a long time. The prosecution has failed to explain the delay. No useful purpose will be served in continuing the present proceedings. Having regard to the aforesaid delay and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the accused should be closed.