DWARKA PRASAD & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are facing trial under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act have filed this petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. to quash the proceedings due to special circumstances.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention raised in this petition some necessary facts may be given : On 6th Sept., 1979, the then Enforcement Inspector visited the shop of the petitioners and finding some irregularities, a complaint was filed after 4 years on 13th Dec., 1983 under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Then the matter was delayed as the prosecution witnesses were not turning up to give their statements at pre-charge stage. The Enforcement Inspector appeared to give his statement at pre-charge stage on 8th Jan. 1993 i.e. after more than 9 years of submission of the complaint. His statement however, remained in compliance for want of some documents and articles. When no progress was made in the trail of the case, the petitioner approached this Court under section 482 Cr.RC. for quashing the proceedings of the case. The said petition was disposed of by the then V.S. Dave J. on Jan. 21st Jan. 1994 with the following observations:

(3.) After the aforesaid judgment, the case was listed before the trial Judge on 9.3.94. On that day, an application was moved by the A.RP under Section-65 of the Evidence Act for taking secondary evidence. The next date was fixed as 18.3.94 for arguments on the said application as well as for recording prosecution evidence. On 18.3.94, the application filed by the A.PP. for secondary evidence was dismissed. The statements of PW. 1 Bal Shankar Sharma and RW. 2 Tejpal were recorded at pre-charge stage. On that date, the learned A.PR expressed desire to examine one more witness, namely, Murlidhar at pre-charge stage. On the request of learned A.RR summons were issued to the said witness and 1.4.94 was fixed for recording pre-charge evidence. On 1.4.94, the witness Murlidhar was not present and summons were not served upon him. The Court therefore, again summoned the witness Murlidhar and summons were given to A.PR for service and next date was fixed as 3.5.94. On 3.5.94, again the witness Murlidhar could not be examined as he was not present in the Court. It was also noticed that summons were not issued as per earlier order, and the next date was fixed as 20.5.94. On 20.5.94, the witness Murlidhar again did not appear and as such, his evidence was closed and the next date was fixed for arguments on framing charge. On the next date i.e. 26.5.94, arguments on framing charge were heard and next date was fixed as 7.6.94. It appears that on 7.6.94, the charges were framed against the petitioners and thereafter, till today, not a single prosecution witness has been examined. In such state of affairs, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the proceedings.