GOPAL AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Crimial P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings of the Crl. Case No. 185/88 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar under section 7 r/w 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Nagaur against the petitioners on 29.11.1988. The petitioners appeared in the Court on 26.4.1989. The petitioners moved application for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory which was allowed. The case was adjourned number of times for receiving second sample search was ultimately received on 24.7.1991 and 5.9.1991. Thereafter the case could not make progress because there was no posting of the presiding officer. Thereafter the case was adjourned for hearing the arguments on the point of cognizance taken against the petitioners. The case was further taken up for the attendance of the partners of the firm against whom the summons were issued by the Court for the said purpose. The case was adjourned upto 28.10.1995. Thereafter one accused remained absent and the case proceeded for procuring the attendance of that accused upto 27.8.1997. Several times, the process were not issued by the office of the Court thereafter, the presiding officer was transferred and now the case is pending for the attendance of the accused persons.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no role was assigned to the present petitioners-Gopal and Kailash Chandra because they purchased the oil from the manufacturer and the offence under section 7 r/w 16 P.F.A. Act is not made out against them. It is submitted that the petitioners are regularly attending the Court and adjournments are causing unnecessary harassment to them. The case was delayed because of the application filed by the prosecution to implead the manufacturer as accused and service on the manufacturer took long time. Now 11 years have passed and the case is still pending at this stage of summoning the other accused persons. It is therefore, argued that the continuation of the proceeding amounts to abuse of the process of the Court because of in ordinance delay to complete the trial and this should be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer a the ground that the trial Court is proceeding with the trial in accordance with the prescribed procedure and law. No delay has occasioned due to the lapse of the prosecution. Therefore it is contended that merely because the case is pending for the last 11 years, the proceedings cannot be quashed. On the other hand it is also argued that the accused persons are themselves responsible for the delay because they remained absent during the trial number of times and the case is pending for attendance of other accused persons. It is wrong to say that the petitioners are being harassed because their applications for exemption of attendance have been granted by the Court whenever necessary.