HEERA RAM SIRVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 41/85 pending against him in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Food Inspector, Jodhpur presented a complaint against the petitioner under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 10-4-85 on the basis of a sample collected on 16-10-84. The petitioner appeared in the Court on 20-6-88 and the trial Court ordered to call the witnesses for evidence before charge. The Presiding Officer was not posted in that Court and witnesses could not be examined on five dates up to 31-8-89. The witnesses were, however, summoned by order dated 4-1-90 but on three dates the statement of the Food Inspector could not be recorded as the sample was not received and his statement was partially recorded on 7-2-91. The witnesses were not examined up to 24-7-96 for various reasons recorded in the order sheets and only witness Mishrilal was examined on 4-6-96. Thereafter the case proceeded for completing the statement of P.W. 1 Sanwal Singh. He was summoned on various dates and he was present in Court on 10-3-98 after nine adjournments. However, the statement of Sanwal Singh were not completed even on 10-3-98 because he did not bring with him the relevant record and the case was adjourned at the request of the prosecution. Now, the case is pending for completing the statement of Sanwal Singh, who is being summoned by the Court. In the above circumstances this petition has been preferred for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the certified copies of the order sheets submitted by the petitioner up to 10-11-98. It is crystal clear by the order sheets that pre-charge evidence is not complete even after lapse of ten years. The case is pending for the last 14 years. It is also borne out from the proceedings that delay has not occasioned for any tactics or the conduct of the petitioner. He has been regularly attending the Court and co-operating with the Court for trial. The prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses by getting the summons served and even the statement of the Food Inspector is still incomplete. I am of the view that in this case the proceedings have made progress at snails pace. It can well be said that if the proceedings are allowed to continue in such a leisurely manner then it is likely to take another ten years. It is clearly a matter of abuse of process of law.