Madan vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Madan Petitioner has come up in revision against the order dated 8th July, 1991, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which he set aside the conviction and sentence passed against him by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and remanded the case for Extrial.

The petitioner was tried on the basis of a complaint for an offence u/s 7 (1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. on the allegations that he was found in possession of 20 kg of milk for sale and on analysis of the sample purchased by the Food Inspector, the deficiency in milk was found to be 10 per cent in milk fat and 8 per cent in milk solids not fat.

Admittedly, u/s 16A of the Act, the petitioner was to be tried in a summary manner, but the trial court exercising the power under the proviso to the section could convert it into a warrant trial either at the initial stage of trial or pending the trial. The learned Magistrate, without recording his reasons for holding the warrant trial, directed the trial as a warrant case. The Magistrate had adopted the procedure of a warrant trial as the petitioner wanted that he should not be tried in a summary manner. Obviously, this was an incorrect procedure adopted by the Magistrate. The law required him to form his own judicial opinion for following the procedure. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was thus correct in his approach so far as the setting aside of the order of conviction and sentence is concerned, for the simple reason that the procedure followed was illegal. Legally, the order of remand is also correct and should not be interfered with.

However, there is another aspect of the case. The sample was drawn on 91283 and the prosecution has, thus, been going on for almost 8 years. The petitioner has a right to a speedy trial.

A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) RCR(Crl.) 302 (Patna) : 1986 Cri. LJ 1771 , held that the right of a speedy trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A delay of seven years in an investigation and trial in a criminal case. Is the outer limit for concluding the proceedings in cases which are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death.

In Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990 PAP 101, J. S. Sekhon, J., and in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1990 PAP 140, S. S. Grewal, J. quashed the proceeding due to inordinate delay in completion of trial. The same principle applies to the case in hand.

Moreover, the milk regarding which sample was taken was only 20 kg. which. will indicate that the petitioner herein was only a perty shopkeeper. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned proceedings.