JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial of the offence under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 instituted on 9-8-84 and registered as Cr. Regular Case No. 4/84 in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases, Pratapgarh i.e. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. This petition is under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the aforesaid proceedings under the inherent powers of this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the order sheets produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the accused has the fundamental right to have the trial against him expeditiously concluded. Whereas the trial is pending against him for the last more than 14 years and his fundamental right has been infringed without his fault. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of the process of law and it should be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and argued that the directions may be given to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a time frame work of three months because the allegations against the petitioner are under the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. The case was instituted against the petitioner on 9-8-94. The charge was framed on 15-1-86. Thereafter witnesses were examined and at one stage after examination of 13 witnesses, order was passed for de novo trial. In this case orders for de novo trial were made on 7-10-92, 15-5-93, 6-5-95 and 4-3-97 with the result that the trial is not over even after the lapse of more than 14 years. There does not appear any fault on the part of the petitioner towards contributing this delay. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the orders for de novo trial had to be passed in accordance with law in a summary trial procedure adopted in this case. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the proceedings are pending against the petitioner for more than 14 years and due to orders of de novo trial now, the witnesses are being re-summoned. It is obvious that the petitioner has suffered mental agony and physical discomfort as well as financial loss in attending the Courts regularly for the last more than 14 years. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in the above facts and circumstances would cause great injustice to him. The pending proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case.