- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. In these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings in criminal cases Nos. 4514, 4515, 4516 and 4517 of 1990 under Sections 120-B, 465, 467,468,471 and 511 I. P. C. State v. V. D. Tiwari, and others pending in the court of metropolitan Magistrate Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) AS similar assertions has been made in all these cases, they shall be heard together and shall be disposed of by this Judgment. The facts of the case are that the applicant was working as senior assistant in the Department of Industries (Head quarter) U. P. Kanpur. A first information report was lodged by the Joint Director of Industries on behalf of Commissioner and Director or Industries in U. P. regarding some misappropriation of raw material. In pursuance of the F. I. R. which is dated 29. 5. 74, the investigation was conducted by the C. I. D. and a charge-sheet was submitted on 22. 2. 1977, five persons, including the present applicant were named as accused persons. According to the charge. sheet, Sri V. D. Tiwari and Onkar Nath Mehra, were named as principal accused. It is said that both these persons who were previously employed in the Directorate of Industries had resigned sometime. In the year (sic ). It was asigned that these persons floated tougus firms under fictitious names they on the basis of forged and fake allotment letters secured the release of raw materials and sold they at heavy premium. It was alleged that third co-accused Shiv Nath lent his premises while the applicant alongwith one Shiv Shankar passed material official information to the principal accused and received illicit money from them. It is said that a cheque for 500/- issued by one of the principal accused was encashed by the persent applicant. After filing of the F. I. R. and ruling the investigation, the applicant was arrested and then bailed out. The applicant was suspended in the year 1976. However when the trial continued for more than ten years the applicant filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the court. In that writ petition, an interim order was passed on 21. 12. 1987 revoking the suspenssion of the applicant. The applicant has asserted that even though the charge sheet was submitted in the year 1977, statement of only one witness and that too partly as recorded in the case till 16. 1. 1990. The applicant then filed petition under Section 482. Cr. P. C. In this court which was disposed by the Judgment dated 2. 8. 1990 by Hon'ble Palok Basu (J.) The Hon'ble Judge issued a direction to the Magistrate concerned to conclude the trial expeditiously and if possible within eight months of the service of the certified copy of the order it was also observed in the judgment that it was all the more trigid that inspite of the earlier directions, the trial was being protracted to an unfathomable limit. The applicant asserts that even after this direction the trial was not concluded and not even a single witness was examined by the learned magistrate. It is asserted that though the F. I. R. was lodged in 1974 and the charge sheet had been submitted in 1977 i. e. 14 years back the trial was still continuing and except for recording the statement of one witness, that too partly, no other witness has been examined it is asserted that the applicant has been put to extreme hardship in this case having remained under suspension for a long time it has been asserted that it is abuse of the process of the court in case these trials are permitted to be continued against the present applicant more so when the applicant was not the principal offender and has been assigned a very minor role by the prosecution. The applicant has filed affidavit as well as other documents, includ ing the photostat copy of the entire order-sheet in support of his allegations, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The State has opposed the prayer made by the applicant. It has been contended that there was delay in holding the trial mainly due to the obstacle placed by the accused person. It is also stated that the hearing in the trial could not proceed for five years due to the writ petition filed by the other co- accused. It is alleged that con sidering the fact that serious economic offence have been committed it will not be proper to accede to the prayer made by the applicant.
(3.) IN this case it can not be denied that the F. I. R. has filed in 1974 L and the charge sheet was submitted by the police on 22. 2. 1977. The trial is pending since that date. It can also be stated that the statement of only on witness has been partly recorded during this entire period. The order sheet shows that for on the other reasons, the case has been adjourned and very large number of dates. It is true that one of the co-accused has filed a writ petition before this court and this court had granted Mate copy but from the order sheet it appears that the stay order was continued for about two years only. The order sheet also shows that no blame can be put on the present applicant for delaying the proceeding. He remained present in court and always tried to get the matter decided at the earliest. As mentioned earlier, this court earlier directed the magistrate con cerned to conclude the proceedings within eight months but from the order sheet it appears that during this entire period not a single witness was examin ed. The material on record also shows that the present applicant, who was an employee of the industries Department was not the principal accused. It was alleged that he furnished some information to the principal accused who had urged documents to obtain raw materials. The assertion made by the applicant that his promotion has been withheld due to the pendency of the proceedings and as the facts that he remained on suspended for about 11 years should be accepted as the same is supported by the material on record.;