Pema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
essential commodities act, 1955 - section 3/7--complaint filed in 1977--there are 29 witnesses--held, proceedings are quashed.;in all there are 29 witnesses. complaint was filed in 1977 against the petitioner.;hence the proceeding against pema ram, petitioner is quashed.;petition dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - prosecution has failed to examine rugha ram.orderv.r. meena, j.1. by this petition, petitioner has prayed that in this case complaint was filed in feb. 1977 till today only the charges are framed against lala ram that means prosecution has taken 15 years only in framing charges. when the state is not serious in prosecuting the petitioner the proceedings be quashed. 2. in this case a complaint was filed on 28-2-1977 for the offence under section 3/ 7 of the essential commodities act. the allegation against the accused was that on inspecting the shop of the petitioner, some irregularities were found by d.s.o. shri het ram, in respect of distribution of sugar.3. complaint was registered and process ram has been examined so far, still 28 witnesses are left to be examined or cross-examined by lala ram. with this speed, the case will not be completed in another 15 years. this shows that state/ prosecution is not interested in conviction of the petitioner in this case. henqe, the proceedings against pema ram, petitioner is qashed was issued, charges were framed against accused in 1978, thereafter, the case was time and again adjounred till sept. 1983. 25-10-1983 a.p.p. has submitted an application to implead lal ram as accused. that prayer was allowed but lala ram was served after three years i.e. on 26-6-1986. the witnesses rugha ram and het ram were summoned. the charges were framed against lala ram on 7-7-1988 means about 2 years have been taken in framing the charges against lala ram. the case was time and again adjourned to examine the prosecution witnesses specially rugha ram and het ram. prosecution has failed to examine rugha ram. i also perused the order-sheet from dec. 1991 onwards, the witnesses were not present on the dates fixed by the court.4. in munshi ram ram niwas v. collector food and supplies department 1991 (4) jt sc 151 their lordships have taken the serious view in case the state is not serious in pursuing the case and delayed the proceedings for which it has no explanation and observed in para 9 as under:-'during the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though a criminal prosecution is pending against the appellant ram niwas but no effective progress has been made in the case except filing of challan. it appears to us that the state is not serious in pursuing the criminal proceedings and even otherwise more than 10 years have already elapsed to (he alleged commission of the offence. it would be against the interest of justice to further continue any criminal proceedings in the case. we, therefore, direct to drop the criminal proceedings launched and pending against the appellant shri ram niwas in the present matter.'in the case in hand, in all there are 29 witneses. complaint was filed in 1977 against the petitioner. in 1983 a.p.p. filed an application requesting that lal ram be impleaded as accused. the application was allowed but he was served only in 1986. charge was framed against him in 1988. he prayed in july, 1988 that he wants to cross-examine all the 29 witnesses. summons were issued to rugha ram and het ram, only het ram has been examined so far, still 28 witness are left to be examined or cross-examined by lala ram. with this speed, the case will not be completed in another 15 years. this shows that state/prosecution is not interested in conviction of the petitioner in this case. hence, the proceedings against pema ram, petitioner, is quashed.

Judgment:
ORDER

V.R. Meena, J.

1. By this petition, petitioner has prayed that in this case complaint was filed in Feb. 1977 till today only the charges are framed against Lala Ram that means prosecution has taken 15 years only in framing charges. When the State is not serious in prosecuting the petitioner the proceedings be quashed.

2. In this case a complaint was filed on 28-2-1977 for the offence under Section 3/ 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation against the accused was that on inspecting the shop of the petitioner, some irregularities were found by D.S.O. Shri Het Ram, in respect of distribution of sugar.

3. Complaint was registered and process Ram has been examined so far, still 28 witnesses are left to be examined or cross-examined by Lala Ram. With this speed, the case will not be completed in another 15 years. This shows that State/ Prosecution is not interested in conviction of the petitioner in this case. Henqe, the proceedings against Pema Ram, petitioner is qashed was issued, charges were framed against accused in 1978, thereafter, the case was time and again adjounred till Sept. 1983. 25-10-1983 A.P.P. has submitted an application to implead Lal Ram as accused. That prayer was allowed but Lala Ram was served after three years i.e. on 26-6-1986. The witnesses Rugha Ram and Het Ram were summoned. The charges were framed against Lala Ram on 7-7-1988 means about 2 years have been taken in framing the charges against Lala Ram. The case was time and again adjourned to examine the prosecution witnesses specially Rugha Ram and Het Ram. Prosecution has failed to examine Rugha Ram. I also perused the order-sheet from Dec. 1991 onwards, the witnesses were not present on the dates fixed by the Court.

4. In Munshi Ram Ram Niwas v. Collector Food and Supplies Department 1991 (4) JT SC 151 their Lordships have taken the serious view in case the State is not serious in pursuing the case and delayed the proceedings for which it has no explanation and observed in para 9 as under:-

'During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though a criminal prosecution is pending against the appellant Ram Niwas but no effective progress has been made in the case except filing of challan. It appears to us that the State is not serious in pursuing the criminal proceedings and even otherwise more than 10 years have already elapsed to (he alleged commission of the offence. It would be against the interest of justice to further continue any criminal proceedings in the case. We, therefore, direct to drop the criminal proceedings launched and pending against the appellant Shri Ram Niwas in the present matter.'

In the case in hand, in all there are 29 witneses. Complaint was filed in 1977 against the petitioner. In 1983 A.P.P. filed an application requesting that Lal Ram be impleaded as accused. The application was allowed but he was served only in 1986. Charge was framed against him in 1988. He prayed in July, 1988 that he wants to cross-examine all the 29 witnesses. Summons were issued to Rugha Ram and Het Ram, only Het Ram has been examined so far, still 28 witness are left to be examined or cross-examined by Lala Ram. With this speed, the case will not be completed in another 15 years. This shows that State/Prosecution is not interested in conviction of the petitioner in this case. Hence, the proceedings against Pema Ram, petitioner, is quashed.