Rameshwar Dass vs State of Haryana and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Rameshwar Dass, by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of complaint Annexure P1 dated July 18, 1981, vide which he is being tried before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. for offences under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

According to the complaint Annexure P1, the Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner on May 23, 1981 and found him in possession of 17 litres of cow''s milk for public sale. After serving him notice in Form VI, he purchased 660 mls. of milk as sample and divided the same into three equal parts. After adding 18 drops of formaline in each bottle as preservative, he duly stoppered, labelled and wrapped and sealed the same. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst who found the milk solids not fat to be deficient by 22%.

The learned Magistrate started the proceeding as warrant trial and after precharge evidence, framed charge on No. 23, 1982. On May 24, 1988, he however, changed the procedure to summary trial. The petitioner claims that since thereafter, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution this delay has violated his right of speedy trial.

So far as the change of procedure is concerned, no fault can be found with the orders of the Magistrate. According to Section 16A of the Act, it is mandatory to try the case as a summary trial unless of course the Magistrate records some reason to adopt the warrant trial procedure and the change of procedure cannot be deemed to be without jurisdiction.

In view of the DB authority Shamlal v. State of Haryana, FAJ 1989 504, no fault can be found with the orders of the Magistrate in restarting the trial to one as summary trial. However, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution after notice was served on May 24, 1988. In this situation, the delay in the completion of the trial cannot be justified.

A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Madeshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 302 (FB) : 1986 Crl. L.J. 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 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(2) Recent Criminal Reports 278 : 1990 PAP 140 , S. S. Grewal, J. quashed the proceedings due to inordinate delay in completion of trial.

I, thus, conclude that the right of the petitioner for a speedy trial has been denied to him for no fault of his. I hereby accept the petition and quash the complaint Annexure P1 and all consequent proceedings. The petition stands disposed of.