Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ved Prakash vs State on 14 June, 2012
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012
Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
:::
JUDGMENT
:::
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012
Ved Prakash. vs. State of Rajasthan.
Date of Judgment :: 14 June, 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.HR Chawla, for the petitioner.
Mr.AR Nikub, PP, for the respondent State.
...
REPORTABLE
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.246/1996 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954").
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution story are as stated below :-
The petitioner whilst carrying a total of 20 litres of milk in two iron drums on a motorcycle on 10.4.1996, was stopped by the Food Inspector, Sri Ganganagar. The case of SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.(2)
the prosecution is that after observing due formalities, the Food Inspector purchased two samples of milk from the petitioner. The milk samples were sealed in separate bottles and thereafter, one sample was sent to the public analyst for conducting examination thereof. The public analyst upon analysis of the milk sample by his report dated 30.4.1996 concluded that the sample of milk was having 7.90% milk fat whereas milk solids non-fat were 7.95%. Since the percentage of milk solids non-fat was lesser than the prescribed requirement of 8.5%, the sample of milk was opined to be adulterated.
Accordingly, the Food Inspector after giving the statutory notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, proceeded to file a complaint against him on 26.7.1996 in the Court of A.C.J.M., Sri Karanpur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The petitioner upon receiving the summons appeared in the Court, and forthwith submitted an application under Section 13(2) of the Act through his counsel in the trial court on 5.8.1996 seeking to challenge the report of public analyst by having the second sample of milk examined by the Central Food Laboratory.
The Court immediately issued a direction to the concerned CMHO for forwarding the second bottle of the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(3) milk sample so that the same could be sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Despite repeated directions, it appears that the milk bottle was not forwarded to the Court.
On 8.4.1997, again another application was moved by the petitioner's counsel reminding the Court about the earlier application moved by the petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the Act.
The second sample was not received in the Court for the period of nearly ten years thereafter and ultimately, on 25.2.2006, the sample for the first time saw the light of the day after the same had been deposited in the office of C.M.H.O. Thereafter, for a period of 1½ years, the matter kept on lingering on the issue as to who was liable to bear the fees for examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. Ultimately, on 6.9.2007, upon the accused undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- as analysis fees, the sample was directed to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The amount was ultimately deposited by the accused through a demand draft on 4.1.2008 and thereafter the sample was forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory however returned back the sample as well as the demand draft to the Court and the same was received back on 27.3.2009 with the noting that the date of the demand draft had lapsed. Ultimately, a renewed demand draft was SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(4) submitted by the accused on 6.4.2009 whereafter the second milk sample was again sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Ultimately, on 15.9.2011 i.e. after a period of 15 years from the sample being drawn, the Central Food Laboratory submitted a report upon examination of the second sample and as per the report, the sample of the milk was found to be adulterated.
Now, the petitioner by way of the instant misc. petition is seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint on the ground of the same being violative of the fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pendency of the proceedings was purely because of the dilatory tactics of the prosecution. Referring to the order- sheets of the trial court, which have been placed on record, it is contended that admittedly the accused immediately on appearing before the Court pursuant to receiving the summons, filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Act with a prayer that the second sample of milk be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The Court took cognizance of the application and directed the C.M.H.O. to forward to it the second sample of milk immediately so that the same could be forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(5) for examination but for a period of nearly ten years, the C.M.H.O. office turned a deaf ear to the Court's directions and ultimately, on February, 2006 i.e. after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the sample being drawn, the second sample of milk was produced before the Court. Thereafter also, for a period of three years, the matter kept on lingering in the court on the uncertainty as to who was liable to bear the cost of analysis.
Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the proceedings of the complaint are absolutely in violation of the right to speedy trial as guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in this case, the office of C.M.H.O., Sri Ganganagar is solely responsible for the delay which has been occasioned in the examination of second sample of milk by the Central Food Laboratory and now any further trial of the accused for a sample of the milk which was taken way-back in the year 1996, is not warranted.
It is submitted that the petitioner is a petty milk vendor and was found carrying a small quantity of milk measuring 20 litres only and for the offence committed in the year 1996, the petitioner has already suffered protracted trial for a period of nearly 16 years. Thus, it is submitted that further proceedings against the petitioner SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(6) are vitiated because of the unreasonable delay occasioned in the case.
Per contra, learned PP opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that now as the report from the Central Food Laboratory has already been received, the petitioner cannot claim prejudice because the Central Food Laboratory has not reported that the sample was not found fit for analysis. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of delay because the Central Food Laboratory has already given its report upon examination of the second sample and the report of the CFL is conclusive in nature.
On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the material available on the record, it is evident that the prosecution in this case is guilty of gross and unpardonable delay of 15 years for which the second sample of the milk could not be examined by the Central Food Laboratory. The accused has an undefeasable statutory right of having the second sample of food article examined by the Central Food Laboratory as per Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954. The accused made a request for sending the second sample of milk to Central Food Laboratory as early as on 5.8.1996. The Court kept on sending repeated communications to the office of C.M.H.O., SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(7) Sri Ganganagar for forwarding the second sample to it so that the examination thereof could be had conducted by the Central Food Laboratory. The office of C.M.H.O. Totally ignored and disregarded the directions issued by the Court and for a period of nearly ten years, the second sample of the milk was not forwarded to the Court. Thereafter also, for another period of two years, there was a delay because of the indecision over the issue as to who had to bear the analysis charges. The accused thereafter deposited the analysis charges. The analysis of the second sample was conducted in this case after nearly 15 years of the collection of the sample and by that time, it can be assumed that the milk sample could not have retained the same quality. Though it is true that the Central Food Laboratory has not opined that the milk sample had deteriorated or was not fit for analysis despite this, it can be assumed that after the lapse of 15 years from the drawal of the sample of milk, the same could not have retained the same quality when the same was drawn. It is purely the prosecution and particularly, the staff at the C.M.H.O. Office, Sri Ganganagar which is responsible for long and unpardonable delay which has been caused in the analysis of second sample. Therefore, permitting any further proceedings in the trial amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(8) accused to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the effect of delay in examination of the sample of curd taken from the accused Ghisa Ram in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram reported in AIR 1967 SC 970 held that the delay in providing opportunity to an accused for having the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory would vitiate the proceedings. In that case, the sample of curd was taken on 20.9.1961 and was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory on 4.10.1963. Though the Director in that case opined that when the sample was received at the Central Food Laboratory, the same had decomposed but the material observations which the Hon'ble Apex Court has made as regards the effect of delay on the sample of curd are reproduced herein below :-
"The opinion of one of the experts, Dr. Sat Parkash, given in this case show that in the case of a food article, like curd, it starts undergoing changes after a week, if kept at room temperature, without a preservative, but remains fit for analysis for another 10 days thereafter. On the other hand, if the sample is kept in a refrigerator, it will preserve its fat and non-fatty solid contents for purposes of analysis for a total period of four weeks. If a preservative is added and the sample is kept at room temperature, the percentage of fat and non-fatty solids contents for purposes of analysis will be retained for about four months, and in case it is kept in a refrigerator after adding the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.(9)
preservative, the total period which may be available for making analysis. without decomposition, will be six months. In this case, when the Food Inspector handed over the sample to the respondent the respondent was not expected to keep it in a refrigerator. Consequently, without any preservative, the sample kept with him could have been analsed successfully during the next 17 days, whereas, if a preservative had been added, it could have been analysed successfully during the next four months.
7. It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by S. 13 (2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and, is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts contained therein.
8. We are not to be understood as laying down that, in every case where the right of the vendor to have his sample tested by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is frustrated, the vendor cannot be convicted on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. We consider that the principle SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.(10)
must, however, be applied to cases where the conduct of the prosecution has resulted in the denial to the vendor of any opportunity to exercise this right. Different considerations may arise if the right gets frustrated for reasons for which the prosecution is not responsible.
9. In the present case, the sample was taken on the 20th September, 1961. Ordinarily, it should have been possible for the prosecution to obtain the report of the Public Analyst and institute the prosecution within 17 days of the taking of the sample. It, however, appears that delay took place even in obtaining the report of the Public Analyst, because the Public Analyst actually analysed the sample on 3rd October, 1961 and sent his report on 23rd October, 1961. It may be presumed that some delay in the analysis by the Public Analyst and in his sending his report to the prosecution is bound to occur. Such delay could always be envisaged by the prosecution, and consequently the elementary precaution of adding a preservative to the sample which was given to the respondent should necessarily have been taken by the Food Inspector. If such a precaution had been taken, the sample with the respondent would have been available for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a period of four months which would have expired about the 20th of January, 1962. The report of the Public Analyst having been sent on 23rd October, 1961 to the prosecution, the prosecution could have been launched well in time to enable the respondent to exercise his right under S. 13 (2) of the Act without being handicapped by the deterioration of his sample. The prosecution, on the other hand, committed inordinate delay in launching the prosecution when they filed the complaint on 23rd May, 1962, and no explanation is forthcoming why the complaint in Court was filed about seven months after the report of the Public Analyst had been SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.(11)
issued by him. This is, therefore, clearly a case where the respondent was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to have his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution. In such a case, we think that the respondent is entitled to claim that his conviction is vitiated by this circumstance of denial of this valuable right guaranteed by the Act, as a result of the conduct of the prosecution."
Thereafter again in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah vs. C.C. Jani & Anr. reported in 2009(15) SCC 64, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the delay of 15 months in communication of the report of public analyst to the accused led to the sample being deteriorated and thereby the accused was prevented from applying for analysis of second sample and the proceedings of the case under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 going on against the accused were quashed.
As has been observed above, in this case, the total responsibility for the huge delay which has been occasioned in the examination of the second sample of milk is of the prosecution. A gross and blatant negligence was committed in the office of C.M.H.O., Sri Ganganagar and the second sample of milk was not forwarded to the Court for a period of ten years. Thus, without any doubt, the right of the accused to have the second sample analysed expeditiously by the Central Food Laboratory has been severely impaired SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(12) in this case.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the cases of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., AIR 2008 SC 3077 and Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State, AIR 2009 SC 1822, has held that the right to speedy investigation and trial is the fundamental right guaranteed to any person accused of an offence.
A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Onkarlal Vs. State, reported in 2004 (2) RLW 934, while dealing with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, held that the deprivation of the opportunity to challenge the report of the Public Analyst virtually amounts to a deprivation of the fundamental right to defend oneself. This Court held as below:-
"(22) Every criminal trial including the trial for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , is governed by two important rules of procedure. The first is that the burden to prove the guilt is always on the prosecution and this burden never shifts to the accused.
This rule is founded on the law relating to burden of proof contained in the Evidence Act. Since the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, there is the maxim that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
(23) The second important rule governing criminal trials is that the accused person must be given opportunity to defend himself against the charge made against him. This rule is founded on the fundamental right SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(13) under Article 22 (2) of the Constitution. The law as to burden of proof, and the law conferring right on the accused to defend himself against the charge, together constitute the 'procedure established by law' for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution which confers one of the most important fundamental rights namely the right against deprivation of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
(24) In addition to the provisions of Evidence Act, which place burden of proof of guilt on the prosecution, Article 21 of the Constitution also places the burden of proving that the Act resulting in deprivation of life or personal liberty is according to procedure established by law, one the State functionary who wants to deprive any person of his life or personal liberty. Thus, there are two laws (a) the law contained in the Evidence Act and (b) the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which place the burden of proving guilt, on the prosecution.
(25) The law relating to burden of proof, simultaneously does two things; (i) it imposes a positive duty on the party on which the burden to prove the fact in question is placed and (ii) it creates a corresponding right in the other party, which right is to the effect that unless the positive duty to prove the fact in question is discharge, no finding shall be given against it. From this right emerges the right to be acquittal if the guilt is not prove by the prosecution. This right, which arises from the law relating to burden of proof, is very important, in view of the 'right to silence' available to the accused during the trial. Right to silence enables the accused to decide for himself, whether he should appeal in his defence and to further decide, when and at what stage of the trial he should speak. The accused cannot be forced to speak if he decides not to speak nor the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(14) accused can be forced to speak at a point or during a certain stage, when he does not to speak in his defence. Thus, the following principles appear to be applicable to the criminal trials:-
(1)the burden to prove the guilt is always on the prosecution and this burden never shifts to the accused. The accused is therefore entitled to be acquitted, if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt. He need not say anything in his defence nor he need produce any evidence in his defence. Therefore, so on the prosecution has not produced evidence to prove the charge against an accused, the accused cannot be asked to give his statement nor he can be asked to produce his evidence in defence.
(2)In every criminal trial, the accused has unfettered right to silence. He may choose to remain silence either during the whole of the trial or during any part of the trial and no one can force the accused to say anything against his will.
(3)In every criminal trial, the accused has the right to be defended against the charge and this right has its origin in the Criminal Procedure Code from which the right has been lifted to Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and given the status of a fundamental right. This right to be defended against the charge accrues to the accused right from the moment he is arrested or process is issued against him and lasts till the trial is finally concluded. The duration for which this right is available to the accused is the period from the instituting of the prosecution to the final conclusion of the trial. Anything which extinguishes the right to be defended, before the trial is finally concluded, would be ultravires Article 22 (2) of the Constitution."
SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(15) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in AIR 2008 SC 2010 considering the extent of the right of fair trial available to the accused held that the right to defend himself is a part of human and fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"The accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A right to defend oneself and for that purpose to adduce evidence as recognised by Parliament in terms of Sub- Section (2) of Section 243 Cr.P.C."
In view of the above notable dispositions of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, this Court has no hesitation in arriving to a conclusion that the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial as well as the right to defend himself have been violated in this case because of the undue and unpardonable delay which was occasioned by the prosecution. The delay resulted into defeating the petitioner's right to adduce evidence in controversion of the public analyst's report.
Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds and all proceedings of the Criminal Case No.246/1996 pending against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.J.M., Sri Karanpur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(16) Adulteration Act, 1954 are hereby quashed.
Looking to the fact that in this case, the delay in the examination of the second sample has been occasioned by the conduct of the staff at the office of the C.M.H.O., Sri Ganganagar, the trial court shall initiate proceedings in this regard. He shall conduct an expeditious enquiry after providing an opportunity of hearing to the responsible persons and thereafter, shall recommend to the State Government, as per Rule 66 of the Criminal Rules (General), for taking action against the erring officers.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
S.Phophaliya