Full Judgment
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. The sole contention of Mr. Gupta is that petitioner's right for speedy trial has been offended in this case wherein he has been facing trial since the year 1980 and till this date, not a single prosecution witness has been examined; that the offence is of a trivial nature and that even prima facie, no offence is made out against him and, as such, it will be a futile exercise to prolong the proceedings in this case.
2. The Public Prosecutor after perusing the record of the lower court concedes that till today, not a single prosecution witness has been examined in this case. However, he submits that a direction be given to the trial Magistrate to expedite the trial of this case within a stipulated period.
3. I have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It appears that the Enforcement Inspector, Srimadhopur inspected the shop of the petitioner, which was run under the name and style of Firm Rastriya Vastra Bhandar, where he found that the petitioner was hading and in the possession of various clothes of controlled commodity for which, he was having no licence. The said Enforcement Inspector on 7.5.80 filed a criminal complaint before the learned C.J.M., Sikar against the petitioner for violation of Clause (3) of the Rajasthan Controlled Cloth (Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 1975 punishable Under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. That criminal complaint was transferred to the court of learned A.C.J.M., Neem Ka Thana. The petitioner put his appearance in the trial court on 3.9.83 and after a lapse of about two years on 30.7.85 the copy of the complaint and the documents were given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was adjourned number of times for recording the precharge evidence but not a single prosecution witness was examined. However, on 21.8.90, the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on sixteen dates because none of the prosecution witnesses was present. Thus, till 25.5.93, not a single prosecution witness was examined. A perusal of the order sheets of the lower Court firmly reveals that almost on all the dates of hearing, the petitioner appealed in the court. Hence the delay in this case has not been caused for any default of the petitioner. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary State of Bihar : 1979 CriLJ1036 , the Apex Court has held that if a person is deprived by his liberty under a procedure, which is not reasonable, fair and just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right and secure his release. The Apex Court further observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be reasonable, fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure, which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair and just and it would offend the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the alleged incident took place some times in February, 1976 i.e. about more than eighteen years ago and the petitioner is facing trial for last more than fourteen years. The delay in trial has not occurred due to any fault of the petitioner. On the other hand, despite umpteen and amble opportunity, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. Even the Presiding Officer adopted different procedures for trial of this case. First of all, the case was fixed for summary trial and for years together, no pre-charge evidence could be recorded. There after the then Presiding Officer framed the charge against the petitioner and even thereafter for more than eighteen years, not a single prosecution witness was examined. Thus, practically, there has been no progress in the trial of this case for last fourteen years. This clearly violates and offends the fundamental right of the petitioner for speedy trial guaranteed to him Under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such circumstances, the trial of this case cannot be lingered on ad infinitum and the petitioner cannot be subjected to further harassment and humiliation, besides the financial loss in facing the trial. The offence allege against the petitioner is also of trivial nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case wherein the criminal proceeding against the petitioner should be dropped by invoking the inherent powers of this Court.
4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 582/83 (24/82) 'State Versus Mahaveer Prasad' pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana are hereby quashed.