KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner accused is a petty vendor. He is "Kumhar" staying in a small village Harni Bari, Distt. Bhilwara. By selling cow milk, he was earning his bread. On 30-3-86, when he was going on his bicycle at Teja Ji Ka Chowk, 13hllwara, he was intercepted by the Food Inspector and sample of cow milk was taken from him for the purpose of analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the public analyst shows that it was adulterated in the sense that it was having less milk fats and milk solids not fats described under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). On receiving the said report, a complaint was filed on 5-1-87 against the petitioner accused for the offence punishable under S. 7/16 of the Act before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The charge came to be framed against the accused for offence under S. 7/ 16 of the Act by an order dated 21-6-88 passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the first witness came to be examined only in 1990, second witness was examined in 1991 and third witness was examined in 1992. Thereafter, the statement of accused petitioner was also recorded. Surprisingly, an application was moved by the prosecution to recall witness Radhey Shyam, whose further statement was also recorded in 1993. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for arguments on 19-5-93. At such a belated stage, an application came to be filed by learned A.P.P. on 25-6-93 to try the case as a summary trial under S. 16-A of the Act. Somehow or the other, no order could be passed on that application and the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 27-6-97 without passing any order on that application submitted by the learned APP, the petitioner was once again explained the substance of allegation which he denied. Later on fresh summons were ordered to be issued to the prosecution witnesses and the matter was kept on 5-9-97. On that day i.e., on 5-9-97, the learned A.P.P. submitted another application for de novo trial and the matter was fixed for 19-12-97 by the learned trial Judge for passing an order on that application. At that stage, the petitioner accused decided to file this petition and accordingly, this petition was filed on 20-11-97 under S. 482, Cr. P.C. and it is prayed that because of the inordinate delay in the trial, the criminal proceedings Initiated against him in case No. 658/96 be quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Jodha for the petitioner accused vehemently submitted that after the commission of the alleged offence on 30-3-86, by now more than a period of 15 years has passed, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner accused should be quashed. However, learned P.P. Mr. Soni for the respondent State vehemently submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for a serious offence like an offence of adulteration under the Act, therefore, only on the ground of delay, the proceedings should not be quashed.

(3.) There is a lot of substance in the submission made by learned P.P. Mr. Soni that when the accused is facing serious charge of adulteration under the Act, then this Court should ordinarily not interfere and quash the proceedings. However, it depends upon facts of each case. It is true that the petitioner is charged with an offence of adulteration under the Act but in the instant case, the adulterated food which he was alleged to have been selling was 'cow milk' and looking to the report of the Public Analyst, It is clear that it was short of some percentage in milk fat and milk solids not fat, therefore, it was adulterated. In any case, it cannot be said that adulteration was such which was injurious to health.