Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 949 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-16

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the continuation of the proceedings of the criminal case No.14/1992- State v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after 'the Act') pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. It is prayed that the proceedings may be quashed in inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code because pendency of these proceedings is violative of his right to speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the present case is pending before learned trial court since 10th February, 1992. A sample of 'dhaniya' (coriander) powder was taken from petitioner's shop on 07th October, 1991, which was found to he containing foreign starch and husk as per microscopic examination by the Public Analyst in its report dated 25.10.1991. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 30.12.1991 and the complaint was ultimately filed on 10.02.1992. 4. On 10.02.1992 itself, an application was filed by the petitioner under section 13(2) of the Act for sending the sample for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, which was allowed and it was directed that the samplebhe so sent after depositing of expenses by the accused-petitioner. The direction to deposit the expenses being contrary to the provisions, therefore, no expenses were required to be deposited by the petitioner. In this way, sample was not sent for analysis, thereby extinguishing valuable right of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 27th August, 1996 charges were read over to the petitioner. Subsequently, since the Presiding Officer was transferred, charges were again read over to the petitioner, on 28.07.1997, 28.03.2001, 02.07.2003 and 01.08 2005. Till now. no evidence has been recorded in this case despite lapse of about 20 years. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached to this Court for invoking its inherent powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him before the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been regularly attending the court for over 20 years and only charge has been framed, again and again even after almost 20 years of the institution of the proceedings. Even now, the proceedings are liable to continue for pretty long time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been regularly attending the court for over 20 years and only charge has been framed, again and again even after almost 20 years of the institution of the proceedings. Even now, the proceedings are liable to continue for pretty long time. The petitioner has suffered a lot by way of mental agony and physical sufferance as well as financial suffering. So, the proceedings before the trial court are nothing but abuse of the process of law and these proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. The case against him deserves to be quashed on the ground that valuable right of the petitioner, enshrined under section 13(2) of the Act has been extinguished as the same was not sent for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory and it will he of no use in sending the sample for re-analysis after 20 years and therefore, the proceeding against him deserves to be quashed, as the petitioner is facing trial since 1992. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contention and pleaded that the trial court may he directed to complete the trial within specific time-frame fixed by this Court and petition should be rejected. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions. It is evident from the perusal of the order-sheets of the lower court that the case is pending for last 20 years at the stage of charge and thereafter for recording of prosecution evidence due to non-appearance of witnesses. The petitioner is regularly attending the court and has not at all in any manner contributed to the protracted trial. It may he said that the case was adjourned without any sense of urgency or to expedite the trial even after the case became more than 20 years old. i am, therefore, inclined to agree with the averment of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that it has infringed petitioner's right to speedy trial. 8. It was held in AIR 1979 SC 1360 Hussain Aara Khatoon v. State of Bihar , that even under in our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . 8. It was held in AIR 1979 SC 1360 Hussain Aara Khatoon v. State of Bihar , that even under in our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . It was held in the above case that Article 21 of the Constitution confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that so me semblance of procedure should be prescribed by law but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just. 9. I am strengthened in view with aforesaid pronouncements that the proceeding pending against the petitioner should he quashed in the interest of justice. 10. In the result, this Misc.Petition is allowed and the proceeding against the petitioner- Ashok Kumar s/o. Gordhan Lal pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Cr.Case No. 14/1992 under section 7, 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are hereby quashed. His bail bonds accordingly stand discharged. *******