MITAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition is under Section 482 Cr. P. C. preferred by petitioner-accused Sohanlal in Cr. Case No. 412/89 under Section 7 read with Sec. 16, of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short `p. F. A. Act') pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City for quashing the proceedings on the ground of delay in trial.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this petition are that a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 13. 9. 89 to stand trial for the offence under Section 7 read with Sec. 16 P. F. A. Act. THE petitioner appeared in the court on 24. 2. 90 and filed an application on 4. 4. 90 to send the second sample for chemical examination by Central Food Laboratory, but the sample was not received by the court for more than three years i. e. from 30. 5. 90 to 22. 11. 93. Ultimately, the sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory on 25. 11. 93. THE chemical report was received on 11. 3. 94. THE case was fixed for pre-charge evidence but the witnesses were not present from 20. 6. 94 to 7. 8. 95 while the case was adjourned seven times. It could be possible to examine the first witness Mohanlal only on 21. 9. 95. THEreafter charge was framed on 4. 12. 95. THE case was adjourned for further cross examination of the witnesses from 30. 7. 96 to 25. 9. 98 i. e. during the said period the case was adjourned for 13 dates. Statements of Mangilal and Mohanlal were recorded and the case was adjourned for recording prosecution evidence. On 9. 5. 99 the court took the statement of P. W. 3 Devi Singh and the case was adjourned for recording the statements of the accused. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has moved this petition to quash the proceedings. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the copies of the order-sheets filed with the petition. It is crystal clear that the criminal case against the petitioner is pending for the last more than ten years. It is also evident from the proceedings that the accused is regularly attending the court on all the dates and there is no material to assign any delay on the part of the petitioner. It is revealed from the order-sheets that the trial continued in a leisurely fashion for procuring the attendance of prosecution witnesses without taking effective steps to expedite the trial by resorting to timely service of the process issued by the court. It becomes clear that the prosecution took five years to close its evidence after examination of three witnesses. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and the proceedings should be quashed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has already served the punishment by attending the court regularly for over ten years and also by suffering physical stress and mental agony alongwith financial loss. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the quashing of the proceedings looking to the nature of the offence and urged that directions may be given to the trial court to speed up the trial to finish it in a time bound programme. I have given my careful consideration to the rival pleas. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case as prescribed above, I am not inclined to further allow to continue the trial by giving some directions to the trial court because the petitioner has already undergone the stress and strain of the criminal trial for more than ten years. He has definitely in this process suffered mental agony and physical discomfort and necessarily financial loss. He has been regularly attending the court for such a long period cooperating with the trial without any delay in the trial on his part. I am of the view that the petitioner's right to speedy trial has been infringed in the instant case and the proceedings should be quashed in the interest of justice. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is accepted. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 412/89 (State vs. Sohanlal) under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City are hereby quashed. .;