BRIJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, Under Sec. 482 Code Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings against him, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh (Dist. Alwar) in Criminal Case No. 209/1993, State Vs. Brijendra & Anr. Under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is based on the ground of undue delay in trial of the case.

(2.) It is alleged that sample of edible oil was taken by the Food Inspector on April 14,1978. The said sample was sent for chemical examination and the same was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of the oil. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and one Mahendra Kumar on Sept. 26,1979 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 'Rajgarh. On this complaint, the learned Magistrate took congnizance against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The charge was framed against the accused on Nov., 29,1989 that is after more than 10 years of filing the complaint. Even after framing charge not a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. The petitioner has filed certain copies of the order sheets upto 10.01.1995 and from these order-sheets, it is clear that not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gives out that even thereafter till today not a single prosecution witness has been examined. The question, therefore, is whether the trial should be allowed to continue even after 16 years, specially when the accused are not at fault for the delay ?

(3.) It is well settled by now that speedy trial in a Criminal Case is a fundamental right of the accused within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. After considering various judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, this aspect was considered by me in Chote Lal Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) Page 77 . After discussion of the various judicial pronouncement, the proposition of law for quashing criminal trial on the ground of delay was laid down as under:-