Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 263 (RAJ)

Champalal v. State of Rajasthan

2000-02-29

S.C.MITAL

body2000
Judgment S.C. Mital, J.-Through this Misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioners Champalal and Chelaram seek quashment of the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short ‘the P.F. Act’) in Cr. Case No.384/88. 2. The facts leading to this petition may be stated as under :A sample of ‘Laddu’ of ground-nut oil was collected from the petitioners on 3 1-8-1988 and a charge-sheet was submitted after completing the procedure on 24-11-1988. The Court summoned the petitioners for which the case was adjourned on twenty dates from 10-3-89 to 22-12-93 for over four years. Petitioners appeared on 22-2-94 and submitted an application under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act. The Court passed orders on this application on 13-6-94 to call the sample. The sample was not received till 8-9-94. Ultimately the sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory on 17-9-94 and 7-11-94 was fixed for taking pre-charge evidence. The Food Inspector Mohanlal was examined on 20-7-95. The case was adjourned ten times for arguments on charge till 9-9-96. Charge was framed on 26-9-96 and witnesses No.1 to 3 were summoned. P.W. 1 Mohanlal and P.W.2 Ghevar Pun were examined, but the case continued to be adjourned for examination of third witness Munnaram till 30-3-99. On the next date i.e. 30-4-99 Munna Ram did not attend the Court and bailable warrants were ordered to be issued to procure his attendance. These proceedings show that the ease is pending for recording the prosecution evidence. 3. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are attending the Court regularly for the last over 11 years and in that process they have suffered lot of physical and mental harassment and also loss of money. The protracted trial in the instant case violates the right of the petitioners for speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. Thelearned Public Prosecutor has opposed this contention on the ground that the allegation against the petitioners is about adulteration which is a serious offence and also that prosecution is not to be blamed for the delay in the trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. Thelearned Public Prosecutor has opposed this contention on the ground that the allegation against the petitioners is about adulteration which is a serious offence and also that prosecution is not to be blamed for the delay in the trial. It is further argued that directions may be given to the trial Court to speed up the trial within a specified period. 5. I havegiven my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. I have carefully gone through the order sheets filed along with this petition to scrutinise the cause for delay in trial. As already narrated above, the Court took four years to procure the attendance of the petitioners. Thereafter the sample was not submitted in the Court to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for six months. The case was adjourned for one witness for four years from 7-11-96 to 12-2-99. His statement could not be taken on 12-2-99 because the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter he did not appear on the next date. In any case it is crystal clear that the petitioners are facing the trial for the last more than 11 years. They are regularly attending the Court and delay cannot be attributed in any manner on their part. The petitioners have suffered agony and pangs of the pendency of the trial for a period more than 11 years. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India the person accused of an offence has inherent or fundamental right to expeditious trial. In 1990 Cr LR (Raj) 247 a case under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act, it was held that it could not be just and proper to require an accused to face charges after six years from the date of the incident and this fact is itself a punishment. This Court, therefore, quashed the proceedings. The same view was taken in 1998 Cri LR (Raj) 298 (2) (Kamla Kishore v. State of Raj). In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the continuation of the proceedings now is not justified after 11 years in the interest of justice. I am of the view that the proceedings should be quashed in the exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. Resultantly, thepetition is hereby allowed. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the continuation of the proceedings now is not justified after 11 years in the interest of justice. I am of the view that the proceedings should be quashed in the exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. Resultantly, thepetition is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.384/88 (State v. Champalal) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat against the petitioners are hereby quashed.