Alla Ram vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Shri Alla Ram s/o Shri Rikhi Ram has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashment of complaint No. 12 of 1990 and the impugned order dated 4.4.1992 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The facts of the case can be summarised in the following paras.

Food Inspector took a sample of the cow''s milk from the petitioner on 20.7.1989. It was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and was analysed in on 7.8.1989. The milk was found to be adulterated being not in accordance with the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This report was received in the office of Local Health Authority on 9.8.1989. The Food Inspector filed criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.1.1990. The local Health Authority despatched a copy of the report by registered post to the accused on 22.1.1990 informing him of his right that he could get the second portion of the sample analysed from Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, within ten days of receipt of that letter. This letter was not received back. The petitioner did not exercise his right for analysis of the second sample. He appeared before the trial Court on 27.6.1990 and the case was adjourned for precharge evidence on 12.11.1990. After recording precharge evidence the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot discharged the petitioner holding that the report of the Public. Analyst was supplied to the accused after the expiry of four months whereafter the sample of the milk was to be decomposed and did not remain fit for analysis. Therefore, the accused was prejudiced as he could not ask for sending the second sample for reanalysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory.

The State went in revision against the order of the learned C.J.M. and vide judgment dated 4.4.1992 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot set aside the order of the C.J.M by accepting the revision and directions were given to the C.J.M. for disposal of the complaint according to law. This time accused Alla Ram was not satisfied with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge and has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the complaint as well as the order dated 4.4.1992.

Shri Vinod Kataria, counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the revision of the State was not legally maintainable. The order of the learned C.J.M. would be deemed as the order of acquittal and not an order of discharge and against the order of acquittal only the appeal is maintainable in the High Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petitioner in fact never raised plea before the Court of Sessions about the maintainability or otherwise of the revision filed by the State and at this juncture it may not be open for the petitioner to say the revision of the State in the Court of Session was not legally maintainable. The technicalities of law would not stand in the way in determining the real controversy as held in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1169.

Equally is correct that petitioner cannot take the benefit of the plea that after 4 months of taking of the sample, the contents of the second sample must have become decomposed. The petitioner was informed of his right for getting the second sample analysed from Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, but he failed to exercise that right. Until and unless there are positive findings given by the experts of the Laboratory that contents of the second sample were not fit for further analysis, no benefit can be given to the petitioner.

There is another angle of looking to the present case. Admittedly, in this case the sample was taken into possession in the year 1989 and the complaint was filed against the petitioner on 12.1.1990. Would, in these circumstances, after a lapse of 7 years, it be fair on the part of the accused so suffer for the fault of the prosecution ? Would this Court be not fair in saying that the right of the petitioner of speedy trial has been violated ? Reverting the petitioner to take the prosecution at the grass root level would mean to open another channel of litigation between the State and the petitioner and this litigation would mean another prosecution for few years more.

It is correct that law cannot come to the rescue of an offender but in the present case after hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court has formulated the opinion that petitioner is not at fault. He first came to the High Court in the year 1992 against the order of learned Sessions Judge. He is facing the botheration of litigation for the last about 7 years. In these circumstances and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case this Court feels that continuation of the complaint against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and the right of speedy trial should not be defeated by this Court.

In light of the above, the present petition is hereby allowed and the complaint No. 12 of 1990 and the order dated 4.4.1992 are hereby set aside. Now directions are given to the learned Magistrate not to proceed against the accused on the basis of that complaint.