Sikander vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Sikander petitioner has come up in revision against the order dated 15.9.1990, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hissar, vide which he set aside the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehbad, and remanded the case for retrial.

The petitioner was tried on the basis of a complaint for an offence under Section 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 25 litres of cow milk for sale and on analysis of the sample purchased by `Food Inspector, the deficiency in milk was found to be 7.1 per cent in solids not fat and the milk was deficient in 16.5 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard.

Admittedly, under Section 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 produce of a warrant trial as the petitioner wanted that he should not be tried in a summary manner. Obviously, this was 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 remanded is also correct and should not be interfered with. However, there is another aspect of the case. The simple was drawn on 30.1.84 and the prosecution has, thus, been going on for almost 7 years. The petitioner has a right to a speedy trial.

A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Madeshwardhari Singh & anr. v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 302 (FB) : 1986 Crl. 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(1) Recent Criminal Reports 672 : 1990 PAP 101 , J.S. Sekhon, J. and in Dharma Pal v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Report 278 : 1990 PAP 140 , S.S. Grewal, J. quashed the proceedings due to inordinate delay in completion of trial. The same principal applies to the case in hand.

Moreover, the quantity of milk found also indicates that the petitioner was a small milk vendor.

In exercise of powers under section 482, Cr.P.C., the trial of the revisionpetitioner is quashed. The Criminal Revision stands disposed of accordingly.

Revision disposed of.