Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kanak Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Kanak Mal vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 04, 1999
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/763765

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. Misc. Petn. No. 666 of 1995
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kanak Mal

Advocate Suresh Kumbhat, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate S.K. Vyas, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482
Cases Referred
(State v. Kanakmal
Reported In
1999CriLJ1091; 1999WLC(Raj)UC300

Excerpt

- orders.c. mital, j.1. the petitioner is facing trial in cr. case no. 110/85(2/82) under section 3/7 essential commodities act in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, merta. through this petition under section 482 cr. p.c., the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceedings oh the ground of delay in trial.2. the charge-sheet was filed on 24-11-82. charge was framed on 25-2-86. p.w. 1 was examined on 28-7-86 i.e. after six years of the institution of the case. last witness p.w. 21 was examined on 9-8-94 and his statement was kept reserved. thereafter, order for de novo trial was passed on 11-7-95. hence the substance of the charge was again stated on 19-7-95. witness was not present on 19-8-95. the petitioner filed this petition and the proceedings were stayed by this court vide order dated 15-1 -96. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner has faced the trial for the last 14 years till the proceedings were stayed by this court vide order dated 15-1-96. de novo trial has been ordered on 11-7-95 and now all the witnesses will be called again and the trial is likely to take a very long time. the trial has not been conducted expeditiously against the petitioner. the petitioner is not at fault for the delay. in view of these circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to exercise power under section 482, cr.p.c. to quash the proceedings. the learned public prosecutor opposed this prayer.3. i have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. the offence against the petitioner is under section 3/7, essential commodities act, which is being summarily tried against him. the incident is said to have taken place on 1 -9-81 and even the charge was framed after 4 1/2 years i.e. on 25-2-86. now, de novo trial has been ordered after about 14 years. the petitioner accused has suffered mental agony and a lot, financially also by attending the courts regularly. i find from the order sheets that the petitioner has.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.C. Mital, J.

1. The petitioner is facing trial in Cr. Case No. 110/85(2/82) under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceedings oh the ground of delay in trial.

2. The charge-sheet was filed on 24-11-82. Charge was framed on 25-2-86. P.W. 1 was examined on 28-7-86 i.e. after six years of the institution of the case. Last witness P.W. 21 was examined on 9-8-94 and his statement was kept reserved. Thereafter, order for de novo trial was passed on 11-7-95. Hence the substance of the charge was again stated on 19-7-95. Witness was not present on 19-8-95. The petitioner filed this petition and the proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 15-1 -96. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner has faced the trial for the last 14 years till the proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 15-1-96. De novo trial has been ordered on 11-7-95 and now all the witnesses will be called again and the trial is likely to take a very long time. The trial has not been conducted expeditiously against the petitioner. The petitioner is not at fault for the delay. In view of these circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to exercise power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this prayer.

3. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. The offence against the petitioner is under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, which is being summarily tried against him. The incident is said to have taken place on 1 -9-81 and even the charge was framed after 4 1/2 years i.e. on 25-2-86. Now, de novo trial has been ordered after about 14 years. The petitioner accused has suffered mental agony and a lot, financially also by attending the Courts regularly. I find from the order sheets that the petitioner has been attending the Courts and has no contribution at all for the delay in trial. In these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings are quashed by exercise of inherent powers of this Court.

Consequently, this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is hereby allowed. The proceeding of Cr. Case No. 110/85 (2/82) (State v. Kanakmal) under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta is hereby quashed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial