Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 279 (RAJ)

Kishan v. State of Rajasthan

2000-03-01

S.C.MITAL

body2000
Judgment S.C. Mital, J.-This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has arisen out of the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 305/1987 (State v. Kishan & Anr.) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat whereby the petitioner has prayed for the quashment of the proceedings under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short ‘the P.F.A. Act’). 2. The brief facts are that a sample of ‘Namkeen’ was taken from the petitioner on 19-5-87 and a charge sheet was submitted on 13-7-87 against the petitioner and Smt. Shiva Bai. Orders were passed to issue summons to procure the attendance of the petitioner. The process continued to be issued up to 26-7-89 for about two years. The petitioner appeared on 28-7-89 and filed an application for sending the sample to F.S.L. Thereafter, the summons were issued to procure the attendance of Smt. Shiva Bai. Summons were not issued or served up to 22-5-93. It was reported on the summons on 29-7-93 that Smt. Shiva Bai had gone to Gujarat a year back and the address is not known. The learned trial Court ordered to issue standing warrants and also to initiate the proceedings under Section 82, Cr.P.C. the petitioner was directed to deposit the fees for analysis of the second sample. Sample was not received by the Court till 30-6-94. The sample was received after five years. The sample was sent for chemical analysis on 4-8-94 and the report was received on 17-2-95. Thereafter, the case was listed on 3-4-95 for pre-charge evidence. The accused remained absent on 6-1-98 and surrendered in the Court on 8-7-98. Again the case was listed for pre-charge evidence and the case is now pending for recording prosecution evidence. Order sheets dated 21-8-99 and 15-9-99 show that the case is still pending for pre-charge evidence and only the statement of P.N. Monga, Food Inspector has been recorded by the trial Court. 3. Thelearned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner at the relevant time was a petty trolley man at the Railway platform and he is facing trial for the last over 12 years and still pre-charge evidence has not been completed. Thus the trial is likely to take a long time to complete because the prosecution is not keen in producing the witnesses by serving the summons. Thus the trial is likely to take a long time to complete because the prosecution is not keen in producing the witnesses by serving the summons. This has resulted in infringement of the petitioner’ s right to speedy trial, which is not considered a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the petitioner has suffered a lot and the proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument on two grounds; firstly the prosecution is not responsible for the delay in this case because the co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai could not be served and proceedings under Section 82, Cr.P.C. were initiated. Moreover, it is a case of adulteration i.e. offence of a serious nature. The quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner is bound to affect the trial against Smt. Shiva Bai, who has not yet appeared in the Court. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. The above narration of the proceedings makes it clear that the accused is facing trial for the last over 12 years by regularly attending the Court except on two dates. Broadly, there is no material to put the delay in trial into the account of the petitioner. Even after the initiation of the pre-charge evidence from 17-2-95, the case has not made progress and the pre-charge evidence is not complete in five years. In the beginning, the prosecution failed to serve the process on Smt. Shiva Bai co-accused and the case went on adjourned to procure her attendance. It is true that it will not be proper to quash the proceedings against the co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai i.e. absent accused, which can proceed against her even after the quashment of the proceedings qua the petitioner. It is a case with the allegation of adulteration of ‘Namkeen’, which was being sold by the petitioner at the Railway Platform and according to the prosecution, co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai is the contractor of the Railway Administration. Therefore, the prosecution can proceed with the trial by procuring the attendance of co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai and on proving her responsibility for the adulterated article allegedly being sold under her contract, appropriate Judgment can be passed against her. Therefore, the prosecution can proceed with the trial by procuring the attendance of co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai and on proving her responsibility for the adulterated article allegedly being sold under her contract, appropriate Judgment can be passed against her. Therefore, I am of the view that if the proceedings are quashed in relation to the petitioner, then the proceedings against co-accused Smt. Shiva Bai do not terminate by itself and are not adversely affected. In view of this, I am not inclined with the learned Public Prosecutor that due to the absence of the co-accused the proceedings against the petitioner should not be quashed. 5. Whatsoever may be the reasons for the delay in trial against the petitioner, it is evident from record that the petitioner has been attending the Court on all the dates except two, he cannot be held accountable for the delay in trial. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am also not inclined to further fix a period directing the trial Court to conclude the trial. The petitioner has already suffered mental agony and physical harassment and also monetary loss which by itself can be termed a punishment. I am further of the view that merely because the case falls under Section 7 read with 16 the P.F.A. Act; the proceedings cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. I am of the view that for the reasons stated above, the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed in exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. Consequently, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is accepted and the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 305/87 under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, State v. Kishan pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are hereby quashed only qua petitioner. The proceedings shall continue against other co-accused person.