G.L.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THROUGH this misc. petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 45/85, Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act pending against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara.
(2.) MR . Gehlot, pointing out that the case against the petitioner is in respect of the sample of oil taken on 20.7.1984 and the learned CJM vide his order dt. 2.7.1998 has directed that the case shall be tried in summary manner, contended that the petitioner has suffered a lot during the period of 18 years and his right of speedy trial has been violated. Relying on the case of Hemraj v. State of Raj. 1995 RCC 26, Prahalad v. State of Raj. 1996 RCC 241, Pradeep Kumar v. State of Raj. 1997 RCC 144 Ramnath v. State of Raj. 1997 RCC 124, Sukh Chand v. State of Raj. 1998 (2) RCC 64 and Kamal Kishan v. State of Raj. 1998 (2) RCC 210, Mr. Gehlot canvassed that the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. As against this, the learned P.P. submitted that the case against the petitioner is of adulteration in the food article and in such matters the court should not be sympathetic to the accused.
(3.) THE Supreme Court time and again has emphasised the need of deciding the cases without delay. It has also been held that 'right to speedy trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. All previous decisions were considered by the Constitution Bench of the Appex Court in the case of A.R. Antullay v. R.S. Nayak : 1992CriLJ2717 . In that case, their lordships addressed themselves to this pertinent question as to what consequences flow from an infringement of right to speedy trial. At para 85 of the report, their lordships observed as follows - 85. Another question seriously canvassed before us related to the consequence following from an infringement of right to speedy trial. Counsel for accused argued on the basis of the observations in Sheela Barse : [1986]3SCR562 and Strunk 1973 (37) Law Ed 2d 56, that the only consequence is quashing of charges and/or conviction, as the case may be. Normally, it may be so. But we do not think that is the only order open to court. In a given case, the facts - including the nature of offence - may be such that quashing of charges may not be in the interest of justice. After all, every offence - more so economic offences, those relating to public officials and food adulterations - is an offence against society It is really the society -the State - that prosecutes the offender. We may in this connection recall the observations of this Court in Champalal Punjaji Shah : 1981CriLJ1273 . In cases, where quahsing of charges/convictions may not be in the interest of justice, it shall be open to the Court to pass such appropriate orders as maybe deemed just in the circumstances of the case. Such orders may, for example, take the shape of order for expedition of trial and its conclusion within a particular prescribed period, reduction of sentence where the matter comes up after conclusion of trial and conviction, and so on.(emphasis supplied) ;