SURESH CHAND AGARWAL Vs. SATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.The petitioner has filed this petition under S. 482, Crimial P.C., with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1459/83 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City, under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prayer is based on inordinate delay in trial.

(2.) In brief the facts are that F.I.R. No. 158/81 was registered at Police Station, Gangapur city for the offence punishable under S. 3/7 of the Act. It was alleged in the report that the petitioner, as Secretary of Bicholal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti, Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur City failed to maintain the stock register of sugar, did not display the pending stock of the sugar on the notice board of the business premises and that there was shortage in the stock of sugar when the checking was made by Enforcement Officer. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet came to the filed against the petitioner under S. 3/7 of the Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City. Before any charge could be framed an application was moved by Additional Public Prosecutor to implead other office bearers of the society as accused and it took more than 3 years for deciding the said application. Ultimately, the charge was framed against the petitioner on 23.9.1990 and prior to it the prayer of A.P.P. to implead other office bearers as accused was rejected vide order dated May 1, 1990. Even after framing charges the case was adjourned on several occasions but no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It further appears that the Additional Public Prosecutor has again moved application 10.10.1991 to implead the society as an accused and on the said application learned Magistrate has directed to implead the Bicholal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti as an accused through its Chairman. After the said order no further progress has been made in the case.

(3.) It was seriously contended by the learned counsel that more than 14 years have passed but still the case is at the initial stage inasmuch as not a single prosecution witness has been examined in the trial court so far. Learned counsel contended that such a protracted trial is quite unreasonable and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel placed reliance on a series of judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court of the country. I need not refer all these judgments as I had occasion to consider this aspect in Chotay Lal Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan 1991(1) R.L.R. 98 . After scrutiny of all the relevant judgments on this point the proposition of law laid down in para 12 of the judgment as under: