ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER has invoked inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing proceedings initiated against him for offence under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act") in Criminal Case no. 445/2000 pending before ACJM, Behror.

(2.) FOOD Inspector checked shop of m/s. Anil Kumar Suresh Chand on 11. 4. 1989 and took sample of sugar, which was sealed and sent to public analyst on analysis whereof, sample of sugar was found to be adulterated, hence a complaint was filed before chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar on 16. 6. 1990 on which summons were issued on 22. 6. 1990 in pursuance whereof petitioner appeared on 23. 8. 1990 and submitted bail bonds. As is apparent from order dated 18. 12. 1990, accused deposited requisite fee and sample for re-analysis through central Laboratory Calcutta and that sample was sent its report was received as has been taken note of in the order dated 29. 10. 1991 and matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence on 14. 2. 1992. From order sheets it appears that matter continued in process for summoning Food Inspector who could not have served for one reason or the other till 17. 12. 1994. On that day, learned magistrate proceed for summary trial and accordingly, charge under Section 7/16 of the pfa Act was read over and the substance of accusation was explained to which the accused denied and pleaded for trial and accordingly matter was posted for summoning prosecution witnesses so as to record their statements on 22. 4. 1995. But again prosecution witnesses could not be summoned and served up to 17. 9. 1997 as per order sheet whereof, since there was order for de novo trial, substance of charge was again read over and explained to which also he denied and pleaded for trial and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. On 12. 6. 1998 statement of Food Inspector (PW1) was recorded while statement of bhawani Shanker (PW2) was recorded on 20. 3. 1999. As per order 27. 8. 1999, Asstt. Public Prosecutor prayed for de novo warrant trial, to which defence counsel did not object and after hearing parties, learned chief Judicial Magistrate ordered under section 16 (A) of PFA Act to conduct warrant trial and transferred the case to ACJM no. 1, Alwar as a consequence whereof, as is apparent from order sheets, matter continued for process of summoning witnesses for pre-charge evidence and the prosecution failed to produce witnesses despite summons being issued till 16. 8. 2000 and on that day, the case was sent to the CJM Alwar for transfer of the case to ACJM, Behror. Hence the petitioner has approached this court to invoke powers under Section 482, cr. P. C. On 6. 9. 2000, the record was called by this Court.

(3.) MAIN thrust of contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that criminal case launched for prosecution of petitioner has been lingering on for one or the other reason since 16. 6. 1990 when complaint was filed by Food Inspector and despite ten years having rolled by till instant petition was filed on 21. 8. 2000, no effective proceedings have taken place before the Court below where prosecution has not taken sincere efforts to produce its evidence in summary trial and even in course of de novo warrant trial, during which petitioner has cooperated by putting his appearance whenever required and thus in summary or warrant cases, trial has not been concluded by efflux of ten years period, which has resulted in infringement of his right of speedy trial as guaranteed under Art. 21 of Constitution of India; therefore, criminal proceedings pending against him deserve to be set aside. In support, Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Anil kumar v. State; Gokul Das v. State; Kewal chand v. State and Heeraram Sirvi v. State.