The court emphasized the right to speedy trial as part of the fundamental right of life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, and considered the impact of prolonged trial on the accused.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner through instant petition is seeking setting aside of judgment and order dated 11.07.2005 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari has upheld judgment and order dated 11.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari.

2. The brief facts emerging from record and which are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that on 19.05.1992 at about 9:00 AM Govt. Food Inspector (GFI) intercepted the accused and drew samples of milk from the drums which the petitioner was carrying. On testing of the samples, it was found that fat contents are less than prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'Act').

3. The respondent- State filed a complaint before learned Magistrate, Jagadhari which came to be adjudicated vide order dated 11.04.2003. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2003 held the petitioner guilty and awarded sentence of 1 year, under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act. Fine of Rs.2,000/- was also imposed.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which came up for consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari who vide impugned order dated 11.07.2005 came to a conclusion that sentence awarded by learned Trial Court is harsh and accordingly reduced the sentence from 1 year to 6 months.

The petitioner through instant petition is seeking setting aside of judgment and order dated 11.07.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to much argue on merits, however, prays that keeping in view age of the petitioner which at present is more than 70 years and protracted trial, sentence may be reduced to undergone. He further confirmed that his fine imposed by learned Trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court has already been paid.

6. Learned State counsel fairly submitted that as per custody certificate dated 09.11.2022, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 15 days and samples drawn from milk carried by petitioner did not match only minimum standards qua fat otherwise no foreign element was found in the milk in question. She does not dispute the fact that either before or post offence in question, no other case has been registered against the petitioner. She further concedes that petitioner has already suffered protracted trial.

7. I have heard arguments of both side and perused the record.

8. A Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognising the right of speedy trial as part of fundamental right of life and personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 has expounded following principles and held:

86. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. These propositions are:

(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

(2) Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view.

(3) The concerns underlying the right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are:

(a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention shoul