S.C. Mital, J. - (1.) Petitioners are facing trial for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in Criminal Case No. 284/83 (673/85) in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Sec. 482, CrPC and have prayed for quashing the aforesaid proceedings against them.
(2.) The complaint against the petitioners was submitted on 15.11.83 and the evidence before charge was ordered to be recorded on 26.6.84. the case was transferred to Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prabatsar on 3.10.85. Shri Jagdish witness did not appear on several dates and ultimately his statement was recorded on 25.10.86. Statement of another witness Laxman was recorded on 9.1.90 and after hearing arguments, charge was framed on 24.7.90. The case then proceeded for recording the prosecution evidence. It may be noted here that the prosecution witnesses did not appear from 13.10.92 to 5.8.95. The case continued to record the statement of prosecution witnesses after framing of charge but de novo trial was ordered on 30.8.96 and charges were reframed on 4.10.96 and now the case is going on for recording the prosecution evidence again.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the certified copies of the ordersheets. The case is pending against the petitioners since 1983. The ordersheets go to show that the petitioners are attending the court regularly for the last about 12 years. The proceedings did not remain held up on account of some interim order by a superior court. The petitioners are also not responsible for the delay in trial of the case. The main reason of delay in the case is that the prosecution witnesses did not attend the court despite several adjournments. It may be metnioned here that not a single witness turned up from 13.10.92 to 25.3.95 and the case was adjourned in a routine manner. Thereafter, de novo trial was ordered on 30.8.96. Now after reframing the charge, same procedure of recording the evidence from beginning will be taken up for summary trial of the case. The petitioners have attended the court for the last 12 years and in that process they have undergone all sorts of physical and mental harassment and suffered loss of money. I am clearly of the view that the right of the petitioners for speedy trial now interpreted as fundamental right under Art. 21 of Constitution of India by Hon ble Supreme Court has been violated and on account of the breach of this fundamental right, the petitioners deserve release and the prosecution is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that directions may be given to the trial court for speedy trial and to conclude it within a time-frame. But in view of the inordinate delay and protracted proceedings against the petitioners, it appears to me unreasonable, unfair and unjust at this stage now to prolong the proceedings further which will be nothing but to deprive the petitioners their right to speedy trial. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed for the reasons stated above.;