ALADANKANDU PUTHIYAPURAYIL ABDULLAversusFOOD INSPECTOR, CANNANORE & ANR.

         4

  A               ALADANKANDU PUTH!YAPURAYIL ABDULLA
                                               v.
                     FOOD INSPECTOR, CANNANORE & ANR.
                                       July 16, 1979                                                •.
  B                      [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
            Delay in di.Jposal of case.J-High Court .Jhould give perf!mptory direction
        Jori qui'ck diJpo.al.
                                                                                                •
           HELD : The trial cour~ in the country should ensure th8't in the spirit of
        Article 21 of the Constitution, food adulteration cases which involve imprison~
       ment are tried expeditiously so that neither the prosecution nor the accused is
       prejudiced by unusual judicial procrastination. The High Court concern'ed
       should issue peremptory directioos to the trial judg~ demanding expeditious
       dispo8al of cases. Th'e 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-BJ
           It would be for the State Government in the instant cruie to consider ~t
  D    all whether it should exercise it! power of remission and it~ impact on the
       society. [5D-E]

             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
       (Cr!.) No. 489 of 1979.
         From the Judgment and Order dated               9-11-1978 of the Kerala
      High Court in Cr!. R.P. No. 260/77.
             K. T. Harendra Naih 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
      !!O we are unable to examine the tenability of those points. For this
      reason, petition must be dismissOO.
        Counsel drew our attention to the fact! that although the episode,
    which is the subject matter of the prosecution under section 16 (lA)
·G (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
                                                                                            .
                                                                                          ...   '
    whicn, according to counsel, prejndiccd the petitioner considerably.
    We are aghast 11t the traumatic impact on criminal justice inflicted by
    delayed trials when human memory becomes faded and vivid testi-
   mony is withheld. The present case is an instance in point. We feel
   strongly that the trial courts in the country should ensnre that, in
   the spirit· of Article 21 of the Constitution, food adulteration cases,
         A. P. ABDULLA v. FOOD INSPECTOR (Krishna Iyer, I.)            5


'Which involve imprisonment, are tried expeditiously so Uiat neither A
 the prosecution nor the accused is prejudiced by unusual procrastina-
 tion. 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 pro-      B
  secutions in food adulteration cases, thanks to tarred trials blameable
  on the judicial process. The Srate Government bas a duty to sanc-
   t.lon the required courts in obedience to the mandat'e ot Article 21
   which implies judicial justice without undue delay.
     Maybe, there is ilOOlC grievance for the petitioner that he was          C
 disabled m defending himsel! properly, hampered by the lapse of five
 years, but unfortunately the point WM not pres•ed 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   D
 petitioner is a big merchant. Perhaps he was a petty dealer and
 counsel represents that the trade has been wound up. It is also sub-
 mitted that the petitioner has served about three months out of the
 six months of imprisonment. Having regard to the totality of circum-
 stances, 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     E
 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.
 •