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