GOVIND SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint for the offence under sections 3/7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act was filed in the year 1981 and after summoning the accused petitioners, charge was framed on 16th Oct., 1986. One witness was examined and his statement covered three years. The evidence was closed and after examining the accused under section 313 Crimial P.C. arguments were heard and judgment was to be pronounced. At this stale the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered for a denovo trial holding that the court has proceeded as if it was a summon case but the trial for offence under Sections of the Essential Commodities Act has to be as a warrant trial. The petitioners are prejudiced by this and have challenged the same in this petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial court has already taken 13 long years in framing charge and recording statement of one witness and if the trial is held denovo the fundamental rights of the petitioner for a speedy trial would be affected. It is also pointed out that the witness who was examined has now retiered and has settled in U.P and he can come with difficulty on the dates of hearing when statements are recorded and if he is to be called again then trial would be delayed. Reliance has been placed on Mohd. Javed Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLW 456 wherein it was held that when the accused faced a long trial on a wrong charge, he suffered mental agony and there was no valid reason to amend or alter the charge and the proceedings were quashed. In Om Prakash Vs. State, 1993 RCC 68 , the proceedings and charge were quashed when complaint was filed in the year 1979 and the charge was framed in 1987. In M/s. Thra Chand Mahinder Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 RCC 68 the proceedings were quashed when after 15 years the charge was reframed and trial was started afresh.

(2.) As a citizen has a right for speedy trial and unnecessary delays have to be avoided. Even facing a trial is a sort of agony what to say of the result if it is ends in conviction. The petitioners in this case have faced trial for 13 long years and now if the trial is started afresh it will consume another 3/4 years and there is no justification in prolonging this trial. Looking to the facts and circumstances the proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed.

(3.) Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 475/1981 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur are quashed.