S.C. Mital, J. - (1.) This misc. petition under Sec. 482, CrPC is directed against the order dated 13.6.96 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 9/90 pending for the offence under Sec. 3 read with 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Assistant Director, Textile lodged a complaint on 10.11.89 which was sent to PS Basni for investigation. After usual investigation, the case was challaned against all the petitioners under Sec. 3 read with 7 of Essential Commodities Act on 9.8.90. The cognizance was taken on 5.1.91 and the case was listed for evidence. The petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of Case No. 9/90 pending against them may be quashed and same may be dropped because they have been attending the Court regularly since 1990. Orders for de novo trial have been passed again and again on account of the transfers of the Presiding Officers. Thus the petitioners have been put to continuous, harassment since 1990 and there is no sight of the trial coming to an end. The total witnesses mentioned in the challan are 16.. The petitioners have suffered mental agony for the last six years without any progress in the case and they are facing de novo trials due to transfers of the Presiding Officers, therefore, even the proceedings have become abused of the process of the Court as it violates the right of the petitioners for speedy trial. Now again de novo trial has been ordered on 13.6.96 and order has been passed to summon all the witnesses again. In this way there has been no end of the trial which is pending since 1990. Petitioner Ramphal is attending the Court from Bhilwara and has suffered great loss of money as well as mental and physical harassment.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the ordersheets submitted alongwith the petition showing the proceedings conducted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted to quash the proceedings which is now abuse of the process of the Court and violation of the petitioners right to speedy trial which has been considered a fundamental right under Art. 21 of Constitution of India by Hon ble Supreme Court in Hussenara Khatun & Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna and Ors., 1979 AIR(SC) 1369; Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR(SC) 597. It is argued that the procedure prescribed by law should be reasonable, fair and just. If the procedure deprives a person his liberty, that procedure cannot be said to be reasonable, fair or just. He further contended that the deprivation ot the liberty by such procedure would be violative of the fundamental right under Art. 21 and the petitioners are entitled for quashment of proceedings. The procedure can be said to be reasonable, fair or just only when a speedy trial is ensured to the accused.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no fault of the prosecution and de novo trial has been ordered on account of the transfers of the Presiding Officers because Sec. 326, CrPC does not apply to summary trials and the successor Presiding Officer cannot act on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The petitioner also preferred petition against the order of taking cognizance and the proceedings remained stayed for about four months. It is further submitted that the direction may be given to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period fixed by this Court.;