1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 386/2010 & CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIONNO. 385/2010 (Ritesh Motichand Shah vs. State of Maharashtra ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 16 th June, 2011. Heard Mr.V.P.Maldhure, learned counsel for the petitioner and and Mrs. K. D. Deshpande, learned APP for the respondent-State, in both the petitions. The petitioner questions the prosecution in criminal proceedings bearing RCC No.219/2002 (renumbered as 234/2006 : State of Maharashtra vs. Gopal Shriram Agrawal and five others ) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot, Dist. Akola with a prayer to quash and set aside the same as against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the trial is pending since long and fundamental right of the petitioner to have speedy and expeditious trial is infringed, resulting in mental harassment and mental agony. It is submitted that the petitioner was Proprietor of M/s Shah Distributors at Warud Dist. Amravati having business as Clearing & Forwarding Agent in respect of myriad medical products. The petitioner also had requisite license for the business. 2 The Respondent-Food Inspector launched prosecution since 2002 against the petitioner accusing that he had contravened Section 7 (i) read with section 2 (ia) punishable under sections 16 (1) (a)(ii) read further with section 7 (i) with section 2 (ia) (m) on the ground that the petitioner committed offence regarding distribution for sale in respect of alleged adulterated food article groundnut oil (“Tasty Gold”). According to the petitioner, the prosecution ought not to have been initiated against him ; that it was launched in a mechanical and rather pedantic manner, that too without application of mind and the prosecution has miserably failed to procure the presence of rest of the accused to ensure speedy trial which is fundamental right of the accused flowing from Art. 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel placed reliance upon ruling in Santosh De vs. Archana Guha : AIR 1994 SC 1229, in order to submit that if there is delay entirely on account of default of the prosecution without any justifiable or plausible explanation therefor the right of the accused to have speedy trial is affected because of inordinate delay in commencement of completion of the trial. Reference is further made to the ruling in Jagdish Chander vs. State of Rajasthan : 1998 Cri.L.J. 2197 (Rajasthan High Court) to submit that the Rajasthan High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that there was more than 13 years delay in taking sample 3 and the prosecution had obtained a total of 56 adjournments. Lastly, reference is also made to Gangaram etc. vs. State of Rajasthan : 1994 Cr.L.J. 2125 to insist upon speedy trial which is fundamental right flowing from Art.21 of the Constitution. Mrs. K D Deshpande, learned APP do not dispute the cardinal principles flowing from the rulings to the effect that the accused need not be subjected to unduly prolonged trial nor shall suffer an ignominy on account of non-availability of witnesses. Learned APP, however, submitted with reference to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent to raise a contention that the present petitioner had obtained an exemption from appearing in the trial court which is under consideration and furthermore the official concerned had personally went with the police officials in order to serve summons to the rest of the accused persons who were not traceable. It is,thus, submitted that appropriate steps were initiated with a view to ensure expeditious disposal of the case. On merits, it is submitted that there is prima facie material against the petitioner but because the summons could not be served upon accused nos. 4 and 5, the trial could not move forward. Be that as it may, it is essential that the accused must have a speedy trial and it is his fundamental 4 right. The prosecution is expected to complete all the formalities to lead evidence and if certain accused are not traceable despite frantic efforts made by the Investigating agency to procure their presence, appropriate steps to separate the trial as against him can be taken to avoid delay in disposal of the case. The prosecution shall take such steps in accordance with law to ensure that the trial shall be completed within a period of six months form the date of communication of this order to the Court below. With the above observations, both the petitions shall stand disposed of. JUDGE Sahare