RANDHEER SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are facing trial under section 3 read with 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the offences under section 3, 4 and 6 of the Insecticides price, stock exhibition and submission of report) orders, 1986 in Crl. Regular Case No. 20/91 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. This Petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed with the prayer that the said proceedings should be quashed and the petitioners be discharged on the ground that continuation of the proceedings is violative of the Art. 21 of the Constitution of India infringing the petitioners right to speedy trial.

(2.) The brief facts are that a complaint was filed by Insecticide Inspector and Assistant Director (Gardens) Bhilwara on 09.04.91 against the petitioners and their business establishments M/s. Punjab Cycle Store, M/s. Punjab Agro Inputs, M/s. Punjab Agro Service Centre and M/s. Agromatic, for allegedly committing the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the Special Court, Bhilwara. The plea of the accused was not recorded since 9/4/91 till 24.4.97 and it was recorded on 24.4.97. It is revealed from ordersheet dated 23.10.97 that the trial court was directed to expedite the trial by this Court. Despite this only one witness was examined on 11.11.97 as no other witness was present. Denovo trial was ordered on 16.1.98 and the accusation was again read over to the petitioners. One witness was examined on 18.2.98 and no other witness was present. Thereafter the witnesses were not present on 15.7.98, 5.8.98, 7.9.98 and PW/2 was examined on 8.10.98. The trial court fully alive of the directions to expedite the trial ordered to call six witnesses on 8.10.98 as a last chance to the prosecution. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was directed to produce the witnesses and to obtain the warrant of arrest if necessary. But again only two witnesses were examined on 10.11.98 and other witnesses were not present. Special Public Prosecutor did not produce remaining witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed on 21.1.99 being the case on 1.3.99 to record the statement of the accused. After closing the defence evidence the case was fixed for arguments on 24.2.99 which was adjourned upto 27.7.99. The Special Court was abolished, therefore the case was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara ordered to record the plea of the accused and fixed the case on 19.1.2000. Thus the trial has again commenced from the initial stage against the petitioners.

(3.) In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice because the petitioners are facing the trial for the last 9 years and the trial could not be completed due to repeated denovo trials. The case remained pending in the said Court from 9.4.91 to 6.9.99 and it was at the stage of arguments the case was transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara and De novo trial is likely to take long time. It is urged that in this process of protracted trial, the petitioners have suffered a lot in terms of mental agony, physical discomfort as well as financially. The right of the petitioners of speedy trial has been infringed. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention on the ground that the prosecution cannot be held responsible for the transfer of the case to Chief Judicial Magistrate and the delay in trial. It is argued that the trial court may be directed to speed up the trial within a time frame.