KEWAL CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 Cr RC. seeking quashment of the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 165/87 pending against the petitioner under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. The ground taken in the petition is that the aforesaid case is pending for the last more than 10 years, right of the petitioner for speedy trial now interpreted as fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated and the prosecution is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition with the contention that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the court may give directions to the trial court for concluding the trial within a specific period fixed by the court.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. The sample of red chillies was taken on 14.2.87 and complaint was filed on 1.6.87. The petitioner moved application under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. However, the case was posted for recording pre charge evidence on 8.10.90. P.W. 1 Sanwal Singh, Food Inspector was examined on 15.11.90 but his statement remained incomplete. PW. 2 Mishri Lal was examined on 27.11.96 after lapse of six years. The case has not made further progress thereafter and the statements of Sanwal Singh, Food Inspector which were reserved have not yet been completed. Thus, the case is pending at the stage of pre charge evidence. The petitioner is regularly attending the court and I do not find any fault on his part from the order sheets produced before me in the protracted trial against him. It is clear from the above narration that the trial is not making much head way for the last ten years and the prosecution witnesses are not attending the court. The petitioner has been deprived of his right to speedy trial and in these circumstances further continuation of the proceedings can be held abuse of the process of law. It will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings because the petitioner has already suffered mental and physical agony for a long period of ten years by regularly attending the court and he has also suffered obviously loss of money. I am not inclined to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor to further continue with the proceedings even by prescribing a time limit to the trial court for concluding the trial.