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.

Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 12, 2001
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772608

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
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4 of 2001
Subject
Food Adultration;Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482--Delay in conclusion of trial--Quashing of criminal proceedings--Case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act--Chilli powder recovered from petitioner found adulterated--Summary trial--De novo trial ordered for the fourth time on account of transfers of Presiding Off...

Key legal issue
Food Adultration;Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh Chand

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
2007(3)WLN248

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 482--delay in conclusion of trial--quashing of criminal proceedings--case under the prevention of food adulteration act--chilli powder recovered from petitioner found adulterated--summary trial--de novo trial ordered for the fourth time on account of transfers of presiding officers--no fault on the part of the prosecution--proceedings cannot be quashed--however, trial courts should give top priority to such cases.;petition dismissed - - inspite of this, if the presiding officer failed to decide the summary proceedings, then it would be treated as mis-conduct for which they can suitably dealt with......food laboratory and accordingly, another sample was sent on 30.5.1989, on 13.1.1991, the case was tried as a summary proceedings and the substance of accusation was explained to the accused.3. with the change of presiding officers, the case was ordered de-novo trial for the fourth time on 15.3.2000, therefore, this petition was filed on 9.8.2000 under section 482 cr. p.c. with the prayer to quash the said proceedings and dismissed the complaint.4. it was submitted by mr. gupta that the petitioner is a petty trader and for all these period of more than 14 years, there was a hanging sword on his head and he has sufficiently suffered by remaining present before the trial court on number of occasions. he submitted that for no fault of his, he is made to suffer and trial is delayed for all these years. he, therefore, submitted that there is a clear breach of articles 20 and 21 of the constitution, therefore, the proceedings be quashed and the complaint be dismissed.5. it is true that after taking the sample of chilli powder from his shop, the trial could not be completed even after expiry of period of more than 14 years. it is also true that the petitioner accused is not responsible for delaying the trial. at the same time, even the prosecution is also not at fault because of the frequent transfers of presiding officers of the court, the trial could not be completed for all these years. the presiding officers, who are trying the cases as summary trial, they should give top priority to such cases and try to dispose of such cases as early as possible so that with their transfer, de-novo trial could be avoided.6. learned p.p. mr. vyas submitted that in the instant case, the sample of chilli powder collected by the food inspector was found to be adulterated. such food substance is injurious to health, therefore, merely because there was a delay of 14 years in conclusion of the trial, the proceedings pending before the trial court against the accused should not be.....

Full Judgment

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in case No. 311/1994 be quashed and the complaint filed by the Food Inspector be also quashed.

2. On 10.9.1987, the Food Inspector took sample of 'Chilli Powder' from the shop of the petitioner. It was sent to the Public Analyst on 11.9.1987. The report dated 15.10.1987 shows that it was adulterated. Sanction to prosecute was given on 17.12.1987 and the complaint was filed on 14.1.1988 before before the Court. Summons were ordered to be issued on that day by the Court. On 25.1.1988, an application was submitted by the accused petitioner for sending another sample to the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly, another sample was sent on 30.5.1989, On 13.1.1991, the case was tried as a summary proceedings and the substance of accusation was explained to the accused.

3. With the change of Presiding Officers, the case was ordered de-novo trial for the fourth time on 15.3.2000, therefore, this petition was filed on 9.8.2000 Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with the prayer to quash the said proceedings and dismissed the complaint.

4. It was submitted by Mr. Gupta that the petitioner is a petty trader and for all these period of more than 14 years, there was a hanging sword on his head and he has sufficiently suffered by remaining present before the trial court on number of occasions. He submitted that for no fault of his, he is made to suffer and trial is delayed for all these years. He, therefore, submitted that there is a clear breach of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution, therefore, the proceedings be quashed and the complaint be dismissed.

5. It is true that after taking the sample of Chilli Powder from his shop, the trial could not be completed even after expiry of period of more than 14 years. It is also true that the petitioner accused is not responsible for delaying the trial. At the same time, even the prosecution is also not at fault because of the frequent transfers of Presiding Officers of the Court, the trial could not be completed for all these years. The Presiding Officers, who are trying the cases as summary trial, they should give top priority to such cases and try to dispose of such cases as early as possible so that with their transfer, de-novo trial could be avoided.

6. Learned P.P. Mr. Vyas submitted that in the instant case, the sample of Chilli Powder collected by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated. Such food substance is injurious to health, therefore, merely because there was a delay of 14 years in conclusion of the trial, the proceedings pending before the trial Court against the accused should not be quashed.

7. There is a lot of force and substance in the submission made by learned P.P. In such type of cases, only on the ground of delay, proceedings should not be quashed. It may be stated that last time i.e. on 15.3.2000, when the order of de-novo trial was passed, the petitioner preferred to file this petition before this Court on 9.8.2000 and the same is pending before this Court since long without any interim order. We do not know at what stage, the matter is before the trial court.

8. Under the circumstances, after a period of more than one year of de-novo trial, it would not be possible to entertain this petition.

9. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.

10. However, the learned trial court is directed to decide the case pending before it as early as possible.

11. Before parting, I must state that the Registrar General of this Court may send the copy of this order with clear instructions to all the trial Judges to decide all the summary proceedings pending before them at the earliest by giving top priority to such cases so that such type of orders Of de-novo trial are avoided. Inspite of this, if the Presiding Officer failed to decide the summary proceedings, then it would be treated as mis-conduct for which they can suitably dealt with.

12. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.

13. A copy of this order be circulated to all the trial Courts including the Presiding Officer who is trying this case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial