Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ALADANKANDU PUTHIYAPURAYIL ABDULLA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
FOOD INSPECTOR, CANNANORE & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/07/1979
BENCH:
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]
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
6