Madan Singh vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

Madan Singh, petitioner who is being prosecuted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City for an offence under sections 7, read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has moved this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr. PC for quashing of complaint dated 29l081.

On 27881 at 7.45 a.m. the Food Inspector had visited the premises the petitioner of the petitioner and from 8 kg of Desi Ghee, which the petitioner had exhibited for sale, a sample of 450 gms was taken. After performing due formalities, the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Haryana It was found to be adulterated, as it contained moisture 1.20% against the maximum standard of 0.5%. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner was summoned and the case was started as a summons case. On 21283, the Chief Judicial Magistrate converted the trial to one as a warrant case without recording reasons for this change. Since then the case has remained pending without any progress.

It is conceded at the bar that an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was to be tried in a summary procedure. There is one proviso to this procedure and the same reads as under :

"16A. Power of court to try cases summarily.

Provided...

Provided further that when at the commencement of or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code."

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate converted the proceedings to one of a warrant trial with the following order, copy Annexure P5 :

In this case the then CJM Ambala has served a notice on the accused. It is, however, agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the complaint procedure is to be followed in this case. It is ordered accordingly that the complaint procedure shall be followed in this case. PWs. recorded, precharge evidence closed."

The learned Magistrate has not recorded any reasons which influenced his judicial discretion of converting the case to one of a warrant trial. He simply relied on the offer made by the parties that the case be tried as a warrant trial. This order suffers from a legal error and has to be quashed. It is also interesting to note that since after 13184, the date fixed in Annexure P5, no evidence has been recorded. In the comments called from the Court, a reference is made to a strike by the lawyers with effect from January, 1988 to December, 1990, which, however, will not effect the merits of the case, since I find that for almost four years, no progress in the case has been made. The petitioner has a right of a speedy trial.

A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh & anr. v. State of Bihar, 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 Pai v. State of Haryana. 1990 PAP 140, Grewal, J. quashed the proceedings due to inordinate delay in completion of trial. The same principle applies to the case in hand.

Moreover, the Desi Ghee out of which sample was drawn, weighed only 8 kg. which will indicate that the petitioner herein was only a petty shopkeeper.

I, thus, conclude that the right of the petitioner for speedy trial has been denied for no fault of his. I hereby quash the impugned complaint and the consequent proceedings.

JUDGMENT accordingly.