KALLU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Kallu and Mangi Lal have preferred this petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings of Case No. 11/89 u/S. 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) pending in the Court of Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act cases, Banswara.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that the aforesaid criminal case was instituted against them on 2-8-89 on the complaint of Shri Shivnath Singh, Enforcement Officer, District Supply Office, Banswara u/S. 3/7 of the Act. The complainant alleged that he inspected the shop of the petitioners at Bhagi Dhora on 19-4-89 as he had an information that truck was to arrive loaded with wheat and gram bags. The complainant stopped the truck in the presence of Khem Raj, who stated that the bags were purchased from Karji. He produced the bill which had over-writings in the contents. It was found that the petitioners had illegally sold the wheat and gram to other persons instead of distributing to the consumers.

(3.) It is further stated by the petitioners that the case was fixed for stating the accusation of the offence on 4-11-89. It was adjourned several times as ultimately accusation was read over on 4-8-92. It was posted for recording the prosecution evidence on 13-10-92. The prosecution did not examine any witness upto 24-5-94 and the Presiding Officer stood transferred. Therefore, order was passed for de novo trial. P.W. 1 was examined on 14-2-95 and second witness was examined on 15-4-96. Two witnesses were examined on 20-8-96 and one witness was examined on 19-11-96, 31-3-1997 and 27-1-98 and two witnesses examined on 10-3-98. Further one witness was examined also on 3-4-98. However, the Presiding Officer was transferred on 18-6-98. Again de novo trial has to take place. In this way, this case is lingering on for last nine years and almost at the same stage because of fresh orders for de novo trial. It is prayed that the proceedings in the criminal case may be quashed in the above facts and circumstances, because the right of the petitioners for speedy trial has been infringed due to delay.