THAKUR DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 13.10.88 Sh. Om Veer Singh, Food Inspector, had purchased 600 gms. of Khandsari Sugar from the applicant at his shop at Nauganv (Alwar). On analysis the sample of the Khandsari sugar was found adulterated and therefore the Food Inspector filed a complaint for offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) against the petitioner in the competent court. The petitioner put in appearance in The court on 21.2.1991 and since then the applicant has been facing trial in the said complaint case. Termination of the proceedings of the said complaint case on the ground of violation of fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial has been prayed for in this petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. In support of such prayer the certified copies of the order sheets of the trial court have been produced and reliance has been placed on the decisions of this court in the case of Sukh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998(2) RCC 64 , Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 32/1998 dated 23.3.98 , Gagan Dass and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999(1) RCC 30 , Ram Avtar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999(1) RCC 321 and Gokal Dass & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998(2) RCC 576 .

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before me.

(3.) The petitioner had put in appearance in court in this case on 21.2.1991 and thereafter the learned Magistrate had adjourned the case for 5.9.91 for recording evidence before charge. The case continued to be adjourned on 5.9.91, 3.10.91, 26.2.92, 9.6.92, 7.10.92, 19.1.93, 9.4.93, 27.7.93, 1.10.93, 25.1.94, 12.4.94, 26.8.94, 29.11.94 and 2.3.93 in order to enable the complainant to produce his evidence before charge. Not only that no witness was examined during this long period but also that the Food Inspector himself who was the complainant was not examined, for one reason or the other, in support of his complaint. On 2.3.95 the learned Magistrate appears to have read over and explained the substance of accusation to the petitioner and the case was adjourned for recording prosecution evidence. Upto 30.5.97 the case continued to be adjourned to enable the complainant to examine his witnesses but none appears to have to been produced. On 30.7.97 the learned Magistrate directed that de-novo trial shall be held in the case and again read over and explained the substance of accusation to the applicant. Thereafter only two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution by now and the case has continuously been adjourned for procuring the attendance of the is Food Inspector. During this long period of pendency of the trial the applicant is found to have regularly attended the dates of hearing fixed in the case.