SUKH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "It is a sad reflection on the legal and judicial system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a longer number of years. Even a delay of one year in the commencement of the trial is bad enough, how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as 3 or 7 or even 10 years. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be r ,o doubt that delay in trial be itself constitutes denial of justice." By making the above observations their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar, (AIR 1979 SC 1360) extended the scope of Art. 211 of the Constitution of India by including the speedy trial in its ambit as fundamental right of the accused.

(2.) In the instant revision, the fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused petitioner is to be judged. Impugning the order dated Feb. 22, 1997, of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.RC., whereby at the fag end of the trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act be amended.

(3.) Admittedly, the complaint under section 77/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) was filed on Nov. 11, 1987. On Feb. 22, 1997 when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate decided to dictate the judgment after hearing the arguments of the parties he found that charge under section 7/16 of the Act was wrongly framed and it required amendment. Thus, the charge was amended and prosecution witness was resummoned.