Sunder Pal vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

Sunder Lal petitioner, by means of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of trial No. 128/3/84 pending before the SDJM, Gohana.

Petitioner has averred that on August 26, 1983, Food Inspector, Gohana, filed a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1984, on the allegations that on inspection of the premises of the petitioner on July 1, 1983, by the complainant, 24 bottles of Fanta carbonated water were found kept for public sale. A sample of the same was drawn which on analysis was found to contain saccharine 220 PPM against the maximum prescribed standard of 100 PPM He had, thus, contravened the provisions of the Act. Petitioner was summoned by the court for October 3, 1983 and the case was fixed for precharge evidence. The case was however, sent to the CJM on the ground that the Magistrate was not competent to try the offence. On February 27, 1985, charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was framed and the trial was started as warrant case. The prosecution, however, pointed out to the Court that the case was summarily triable and as such, the CJM Sonepat, served a notice of allegations upon the petitioner and started the case as a summary trial on June 5, 1985 and a copy of the notice of allegations is Annexure P2. Thereafter no evidence as recorded. On August 5, 1986, the case was transferred to SDJM, Gohana and since then the case is pending trial with no progress.

On the facts, the petition has not been contested, but it is claimed at the recording of prosecution evidence was in progress.

There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner had a right of speedy trial and the prosecution case having remained pending for almost a period of 9 years, the proceedings should be terminated.

A full Bench of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 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. in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Report 278 : 1990 PAP 110, S.S. Grewal, J. and this Bench in Cr. M 607M, 1991. Sushil Kumar Solanki v. State of Haryana, decided on 28.1.1992 quashed the proceedings due to inordinate delay in the completion of trial. The same principle applies to the case in hand.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned proceedings.