Balwant Singh vs State of Haryana

J.S. Sekhon, J.

On 31.3.1982, a sample of unindicated milk was taken from the possession of Balwant Singh petitioner by Shri R. C. Chopra, Food Inspector, Gohana. The sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it to be deficient by 12 per cent in milk fats and 21 per cent deficient of solids not fat than the prescribed standard. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, proceedings under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were lodged against the petitioner.

The trial Court initially started trying this case as a warrant case, but later on in view of the judgment of this High Court in Budh Ram (deceased) v. State of Haryana, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 510 (P&H) : 1985(2) PLR 509 (F.B.) in which it was held that such cases should be tried summarily, the trial Court vide its order dated 21.7.1989 (Annexure P.2) ordered the retrial of the case as a summary case and directed that the Food Inspector shall adduce his evidence within two months of that order. Later on vide order dated 28.10.1989 the trial Court recalled those witnesses also for examination whose evidence had already been recorded in the case while trying it as a warrant case.

Feeling aggrieved against the above referred two orders of the trial Court, the petitioner had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing those Proceedings contending that prolonged trial, for more than 7 years has resulted in miscarriage of justice and denial of inherent right. of expeditious trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, of India.. It is also maintained that as the factum of stirring milk properly before taking this sample being absent from the seizure memo of the sample and the complaint itself, further proceedings in the trial Court would be a futile exercise as these lacunae cannot be filled in even by the deposition of the Food Inspector.

Mr. R S. Tacoria, the learned counsel for the State, has rightly not felt the necessity of filing reply but has contended that in view of the seriousness of the offence of adulteration of milk affecting the health of the nation, mere prolongation of trial for seven years should not weigh with the Court. It is also maintained that the Food Inspector as well as other witnesses might satisfactorily explain the stirring of the milk during their testimony at the trial.

A full Bench of the Patna High Court in Madhishwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1986 Crl. L. 1. 11771, has laid down that the right to speedy public trial is available in all criminal prosecutions irrespective of the nature of offence involved and that it is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After referring to the cow law, the Full Bench decided that seven years delay in investigation and trial in a criminal case is the outer limit for concluding these proceeding in those cases which are punishable with imprisonment for life or death. It has further been held that delay should not be due to the fault of the accused and exceptional reasons for such delay should be absent. In the case in hand the delay in disposing of these proceedings had occurred solely due to the fault of the trial Court in trying this case as a warrant case although the mandatory provisions of section 16A of the Act provided for a summary trial. It is further mentioned in that section that if the Court feels that adequate punishment cannot be awarded in a summary trial, then it can try it as a warrant case by passing a speaking order. In this case the trial Court initially tried the case as a warrant case till the month of July 1989 when it came to its notice that it is imperative for the Court to try it as a summary case when the above referred impugned order Annexure P. 2 was passed. Thus, the wrong interpretation of the provisions of section 16A of the Act on the part of the trial Court is not an exceptional ground to circumvent the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the pendency of these criminal proceedings against the petitioner for more than 7 years has certainly resulted in miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court besides negation of the fundamental right of speedy trial to the petitioner. These proceedings are therefore, ordered to be quashed by accepting this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In view of the above findings, there is no need to discuss the nonstirring of milk before taking its sample.