Kulbir Kumar vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J.

The petitioner prays for the quashing of the proceedings pending against him in the Court of Special Judge, Jullundur, under the Essential Commodities Act

A sample of fertilizer (N.P.K.) was taken from the petitioner on January 18, 1979, and later as a result of the analysis conducted in Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, on October 28, 1980, it was found to be adulterated to the extent that the total phosphate was 29.20 as against the permissible limit of 32.0. Total nitrogen and water soluble phosphate, were, of course, found up to the prescribed limit. In spite of this result from the laboratory, no case for violation of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1957, (for short, the order), was registered against him till August 2, 1981. Not only this, the police again went into slumber and did not investigate the matter in any manner till September 19, 1984, when first statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by them. Thereafter, as a result of the investigation that was conducted, a report was submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, on January 17, 1985. A charge was framed against the petitioner by the said Court under Section 7 of the Act for the violation of JUDGMENTHe successfully impugned the same in this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 845 of 1985, decided on August 8, 1985. The learned Judge of this Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of Section 12A of the Act which lays down that such an offence was triable only by a Special Judge. As a result of this order, the challan was represented before the Special Judge on December 20, 1985. The petitioner filed the present petition on March 2, 1986, and obtained an interim order on March 4, 1986, staying the proceedings in the trial Court. This is how the matter is now before me.

The primarily contention of Mr. H.S. Gill, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the unusual and unnecessary delay of about 7 years in not concluding the trial against him is not only violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 the Constitution, but is also bound to prejudice him in the matter of his defence. For this submission of his, he relies on Madheshwardri Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) RCR(Crl.) 302 (Patna) : AIR 1986 Patna 324 , and Amar Nath and others v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 257 . These judgments apparently support the above noted contention of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel for the State is not in a position to explain as to how any why the case was not registered against the petitioner till August 2, 1981, and what the police was doing for about three years till it started investigating the matter on September 19, 1984. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also appears to be right in submitting that the petitioner is bound to be prejudiced in proving his defence successfully. Such a delayed prosecution, to my mind, is the misuse of the process of the Court. Following the ratio of the abovenoted judgments, I quash the proceedings now pending against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge, Jullundur.

JUDGMENT accordingly.