Aladankandu Puthiyapurayil Abdulla Vs.
Food Inspector, Cannanore & ANR [1979] INSC 116 (16 July 1979)
ACT:
Delay in disposal of cases-High Court should
give peremptory direction for quick disposal.
HEADNOTE:
HELD : The trial courts in the country should
ensure that in the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution, food adulteration
cases which involve imprisonment are tried expeditiously so that neither the
prosecution nor the accused is prejudiced by unusual judicial procrastination.
The High Court concerned should issue
peremptory directions to the trial judges demanding expeditious disposal of
cases.
The State Government has a duty to sanction
the required courts in obedience to the mandate of Article 21 which implies
judicial justice without undue delay. [4H, 5A-B] It would be for the State
Government in the instant case to consider at all whether it should exercise
its power of remission and its impact on the society. [5D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 489 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9-11-1978
of the Kerala High Court in Crl. R.P. No. 260/77.
K. T. Harendra Nath and T. T. Kunhikannan for
the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The Petitioner has pressed before us certain points of law
which have not been urged before the High Court and so we are unable to examine
the tenability of those points. For this reason, petition must be dismissed.
Counsel drew our attention to the fact that
although the episode, which is the subject matter of the prosecution under
section 16 (1A) (i) read with section 7(i) and section 2(1A) of the prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, took place allegedly in 1972. There was inexplicable,
inordinate delay in trial. The case was tried in 1977 which, according to
counsel, prejudiced the petitioner considerably. We are aghast at the traumatic
impact on criminal justice inflicted by delayed trials when human memory
becomes faded and vivid testimony is withheld. The present case is an instance in
point. We feel strongly that the trial courts in the country should ensure
that, in the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution, food adulteration cases,
5 which involve imprisonment, are tried expeditiously so that neither the
prosecution nor the accused is prejudiced by unusual procrastination. We
express the hope that the High Court concerned will issue peremptory directions
to trial Judges demanding expeditious disposal of such cases. In the present
case, prosecution evidence, as regards taking of samples, is perhaps not as
good as it would have been had the trial been prompt. We do not want forensic
martyrdoms for prosecutions in food adulteration cases, thanks to tarred trials
blamable on the judicial process. The State Government has a duty to sanction
the required courts in obedience to the mandate of Article 21 which implies
judicial justice without undue delay.
Maybe, there is some grievance for the
petitioner that he was disabled in defending himself properly, hampered by the
lapse of five years, but unfortunately the point was not pressed before the
High Court; and, we do not think it proper to investigate the substantiality of
the prejudice.
As for the sentence, true that, in this case,
it is not shown that the petitioner is a big merchant. Perhaps he was a petty
dealer and counsel represents that the trade has been wound up. It is also
submitted that the petitioner has served about three months out of the six
months of imprisonment. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, it is
open to the petitioner to move the State Government to remit the remaining
portion of the sentence, if so advised, and it would be for the Government to
consider at all whether it should exercise its power of remission and its
impact on society.
N.K.A. Petition dismissed.
Back
