Special Leave Petition Crl No 489 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 9 11 1978 of the Kerala High Court in Crl
RP No 26077
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 7i and section 21A 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
NKA Petition dismissed


Summary:
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