S.D.BAJAJ, J. - (1.) IN Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10726-M of 1989 complaint Annexure PI and the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court on its basis are both sought to be quashed on the grounds that the sample was obtained on 23-6-1983 and the trial has been going on for the last over five years and in terms of procedure prescribed for the trial of warrant cases instead of summary procedure envisaged in the statute.
(2.) THIS Court have had the opportunity of examining, the validity of the contentions raised earlier in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana, 1984(2) Food Adulteration Cases 179, Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Food Adulteration Cases 95, Mahavir Parshad v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) Food Adulteration Cases 282 and Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 22 and observed, "It is quite clear that the Legislature intended that all offences under section 16(1) of the Act be tried summarily by specially authorised Magistrate, unless such a Magistrate in writing opines that the accused deserved greater dose of sentence and so he be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Criminal Procedure Code". It was further held in the afore cited authority that "once the Judicial Magistrates are specially so empowered, then they cannot discriminate between one case and the other, and they shall have to try every offence under section 16(1) in the first instance in a summary way, and if a given offence is such that the offender requires to be awarded greater sentence than could be awarded as a result of summary trial, then in that case, after passing such an order in writing, would be entitled to try such offenders in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code for the given offence". Again the right to speedy trial was recognised by this Court in Prithi Ram alias Prithvi Singh v. State of Haryana, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 115 : 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 118; by the Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 302 : AIR 1986 Patna 324 (FB) and by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 558 : 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 139 (SC). There Lordships of the Supreme Court observed : "Lastly, it was urged by learned counsel for the respondents in these appeals that on the same principle on which Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1987 in the matter of Des Raj Singhal was dismissed, these appeals also deserve to be dismissed. So far as this submission is concerned we find substance as regard the appeal against Kailash Nath. The first Information Report in this case was lodged on 27th August, 1985, that is, after about six years of the accrual of the cause of action or taking place of the events which took place in 1979 and after about three years even from 31st October, 1982 when the respondent retired from service in 1988 it would be pursuing a stale matter. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court quashing the First Information Report as against Kailash Nath, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 1988, deserves to be maintained though on a different ground". 3. In the present case the occurrence is of 23-6-1983 and more than seven years have since expired. The inordinate delay entitles the accused. petitioner for invocation of the constitutional right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and therefore, were can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice. No useful purpose would, therefore, be served by ordering re-trial of the accused-petitioner.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, Criminal Misc. aforesaid succeeds and is allowed. Complaint Annexure PI and the charge framed against the accused-petitioner by the learned trial Court are both quashed. Order accordingly.;