Sunder Lal alias Surinder vs State of Haryana and anr.:

G. S. Chahal, J.

By means of this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint Annexure P 1; orders framing charges, Annexures P2 and P3 and the order, Annexure P4 dated 3.4.1989. The petitioner is being prosecuted for offences u/s 16(1) (a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

The allegations made in the impugned complaint are that on 12.8.1983 the Food Inspector visited the premises of Surinder owner of the company, Bata Chowk, Faridabad. From the possession of Jagdish Chander, a salesman of the said Company, he purchased a sample of `Knight King'' Whisky after serving the necessary notice. The sample was divided into three parts and was duly labelled, wrapped and sealed. One of the sample bottles was forwarded to the Public Analyst who found presence of foreign matter therein.

After presentation of the impugned complaint, the parties were heard on the point of charge and vide order dated 921988. Annexure P2 charges were framed. On 3.4.1989, the learned Magistrate found that the case should have been tried summarily u/s 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act, but, since in the event of conviction, the accused could be sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year, be deemed it expedient that the warrant case procedure should be adopted. On 3.5. 1991 he discharged Sh V. S Mishra, Production Manager of the respondent 3 who had also been arrayed as an accused. He directed the complainant to furnish a list of Directors of the Company and the accused representing the company was to be sumthereafter.

Sh. Mehtani, learned counsel who appears for the petitioner, has urged that the case relates to the year of 1983 and the charge was framed in the year 1988 and the learned Magistrate, again, in the year 1989 considered that the warrant trial should continue, one of the accused has been discharged and summoning of the other person as representative of respondent 3 had been ordered. Thus, the case is still continuing

A Full Bench of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another 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 PAP 101, J. S. Sekhon, J, inc Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1990 PAP 101, S.S. Grewal, J. and this Bench in Cr. M. 733M of 1991, Harvinderpal v. State of Haryana decided on 12.9.1991, quashed the proceedings due to inordinate delay in completion of trial. The same principle applies to the facts of the case in hand.......

The prosecution in the instant case relates to the drawing of it sample in the year 1983 and in spite of continuation of the proceedings upto 1991, the same have not been concluded. In the impugned complaint, there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner and in the charge liability is fixed, as the adulterated article had been found from Jagdish Chander, salesman. Considering all the aspects of the case, I accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned proceedings pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.