Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 779 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. The State Of Rajasthan

2004-05-13

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner for quashing proceedings of criminal case No. 159/98 (108/95) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954). 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That on 9.10.1986 P.W.1 Jagdish Vyas, Food Inspector filed a complaint (Ex.P/9) against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbatsar stating that on 17.8.1986 at about 10 a.m. he inspected the milk which was being sold by the accused petitioner in Makrana Municipal Area and he purchased 660 ml. Milk @ Rs. 3 per kg. and paid a sum of As. 2.25 to the petitioner and after completing all the formalities, the milk was sent for analysis to the State. Laboratory and the milk was found to be adulterated. Hence, the complaint (Ex.P/9) was filed under Section 16 of the Act of 1954. (ii) That an application under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 was filed by the accused petitioner on 18.10.1986 with a prayer that one of the samples be got tested from Central Food Laboratory, but due to the reasons best known to the concerned Officer of that Court, that application was not decided up to 22.9.2000. (iii) After filing of the complaint, contents of offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 were read over to the accused petitioner and thereafter statements were recorded and the case was fixed for final arguments and order-sheet of the trial court reveals hat on 15.10.1999 the final arguments were heard and the case was adjourned for pronouncement judgement to 28.10.1999. However, the judgement was not pronounced on 28.10.1999 and the case was adjourned for pronouncement of judgement on 11.11.1999, 19.11.1999 and 3.12.1999. However, on all these dates the judgement was not pronounced for the reasons. Since on previous two occasions, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, on 9.12.1999, he further fixed the case for further argument and judgement on 23.12.1999. Thereafter the case was adjourned for further arguments and judgement on 11.2.2000, 3.3.2000, 31.3.2000, 20.4.2000, 12.5.2000, 26.5.2000, 23.6.2000, and 10.8.2000. Thereafter on 24.8.2000 the case was adjourned on 14.9.2000 for further arguments. Since on previous two occasions, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, on 9.12.1999, he further fixed the case for further argument and judgement on 23.12.1999. Thereafter the case was adjourned for further arguments and judgement on 11.2.2000, 3.3.2000, 31.3.2000, 20.4.2000, 12.5.2000, 26.5.2000, 23.6.2000, and 10.8.2000. Thereafter on 24.8.2000 the case was adjourned on 14.9.2000 for further arguments. Ultimately on 14.9.2000, the accused petitioner submitted an application in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana that since he had earlier filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 18.10.1986 and that application was not decided till date and hence before proceeding further, his application must have been decided. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate through order dated 22.9.2000 allowed that application dated 18.10.1986 and ordered that one of the samples be sent to the Central Food Laboratory and the case was fixed for report of the Central Food Laboratory on 13.10.2000. (iv) In the above circumstances, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the incident took place on 17.8.1986 and more than 18 years have elapsed and therefore, fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial has been infringed and hence the proceedings pending against him be quashed. 3. On the other hand the learned PP has submitted that the misc. petition filed by the petitioner has no force and does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute on the point that the incident took place on 17.8.1986 and the application under Section 13(2) o' the Act of 1954 for getting the sample tested from Central Food Laboratory was filed. by the accused petitioner on 18.10.1986 and that application was decided through order dated 22.9.2000. 6. The question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether the present proceedings pending against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial ; Magistrate, Makrana can be allowed to continue or not or if they are allowed to continue, whether it would amount to abuse of process of court or not or whether the right of the accused petitioner of speedy trial has been infringed or not. 7. 7. There is no dispute on the point that there is delay in this case as the i case pertains to the year 1986 and the question whether the delay in a given case amounts to infraction of the fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution furnishing foundation for an order for dropping the proceeding on the ground that it is in breach of fundamental right, has necessarily to be determined on consideration of various factors involved in the case. 8. Speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no dispute on the point that lapse of a long time is an important factor. It will neither be expedient nor in the ends of justice to allow the prosecution to continue in a case where the accused is facing trial for near about 18 years or more as the case may be because if there is such inordinate delay in trial, it would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. In my considered opinion, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, it may be stated here that if present proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to abuse of process of Court and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that the incident took place on 17.8.1986 and now about 18 years have elapsed and not only that the application of the accused petitioner filed under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 on 18.10.1986 was decided on 22.9.2000 and this fact itself alone is sufficient to quash the proceedings pending before the trial Magistrate. That apart, the continuance of proceedings after such a long lapse of time would serve no useful purpose. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the proceedings pending against the accused petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana deserve to be quashed and the present misc. petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Makrana in Criminal Case No. 159/98 (108/95) are quashed.Petition under section 482 CR.P.C. Allowed - Pleadings Quashed. *******