- (1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. By means of the aforesaid five petitions, the petitioner prays for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case Nos. 2639/91, 2640/91 2641/91, 2642/91 and 2643/91 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, II, Sitapur.
(2.) ALL the aforesaid petitions have common question of law, hence the aforesaid petitions are hereby consolidated and are being disposed of by a common order. Petitioner, Deep Chandra Sharma was prosecuted under Sections 409 and 467, I. P, C. by Krishi Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner was the Incharge of Rajkiyi Krishi Beej Bhandar, Biswa, district Sitapur from 1976 to 1981 and during this period several irregularities to the extent Rs. 2,55, 695 46 were found and therefore, an FIR was lodged by the Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur on 3-8-71 at P. S. Biswa, District Sitapur. The petitioner was also suspended It is said that the petitioner embezzled the aforesaid amount pertaining to fertilizers and other things. After registration of the case, the case was investigated by Krishi Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag, Luckoow and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 19-8-81. The Investigation Officer submitted the five charge-sheets in respect of five different years. On 19-8-81, the charge-sheet was received by the Court through registered post but even on the said date the original papers were not sent to the Court concerned. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the notice had been issued to the accused and finally the accused appeared before the Court concerned on 17-5-83 and since then, the case is going on. It is not disputed that upto now even the charge has not been framed against the accused. The above mentioned facts are not disputed by the prosecution. On the basis of these facts, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that due to this inordinate delay in the trial, the petitioner's fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India is being violated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the service of petitioner was terminated in 1970 before lodging of the F. I. R. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is resident of Meerut and the cases are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Sitapur. On these basis he pointed out that the petitioner has to come to Sitapur on each and every date from Meerut and as pointed out above, there is no hope for conclusion of the trial in near future, therefore, it would not be proper to continue these proceedings. As pointed out above, the sole point for consideration is whether on the facts of the case, the right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been violated or not and the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the said right. It is now not disputed that the right of speedy trial is the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and, therefore, the delay in conclusion of the trial amounts to violation of the fundamental rights. This Court in the similar circumstances, has considered this aspect of the case in a case of Harpal Dutt Sharma y. State of U. P. , 1990 LLJ 28: 1990 JIC 682 (LB) and quashed the proceedings of the trial pending in the Court concerned. On the other hand, the contention of the Additional Government Advocate is that in this case, the accused hid taken adjournments and, therefore, the petitioner cannot say that his right for speedy trial is violated. He pointed out certain portions of the order-sheets in which the accused had moved an applicaion for adjournment of the case. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the incident is in respect of 1966-70. It is also not disputed that in 1971, the FIR was lodged against the accused-petitioner. It is also not disputed that he was suspended and his services were terminated in 1970. As pointed out above, the investigating Officer took about 10 years in filing the charge-sheet in the Court. The charge-sheet has been submitted on 19- 8-1981 as evident from the order-sheet of the relevant record. There is no explanation on behalf of the opposite parties about this delay. Again, even at the time of the charge-sheet, the original papers have not been submitted in the Court and, therefore, the prosecution cannot say that the trial can proceed without original papers, It is not disputed that the original papers have been filed in the Court concerned on 18-7-92. Again there is no explanation on behalf of tha prosecution about this delay. The contention of the Additional Government Advocate that the accused had moved some applications for adjournment, is in my opinion, has no force because, the accused moved some applications for adjournment but on the said dates, the case was not ready and could not be proceeded as the original papers have not been filed in the Court. It may be pointed out here that on 7-11-83 an order was passed fixing the case for 12-8-84 with the consent of the parties for framing of the charges but on 12-8-84 the charges were not framed because, the P. P. , C. I. D. was not present. There is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution about the delay in framing of the charges. The accused moved applications for adjournment but on some of the dates the Presiding Officer was on leave or the lawyers were on stricke. As pointed out above, the investigation has taken ten years in submitting the charge-sheet and, thereafter, again it has taken ten years for depositing the original papers in the Court. On the other hand the accused who is the resident of Meerut has to come to Sitapur on each and every date and atleast 21 years have already been passed from lodging of the F. I. R. The accused has also lost his job in 1970 and, therefore, he has to come to Sitapur from Meerut when he is not in the job.
(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it is evident that the accused had already mffereda gonsiderable harassment not only monetary but ajso by way of constraint attention to the case and repeated appearance in the Court. As pointed out above, it is also not disputed that apart from the mental agony, the accused has also lost his service and, therefore, in my opinion, keeping in mind the facts mentioned above, it is difficult rather impossible to fair trial after such a long time lapsed. The conduct of the prosecution and the interest taken by the prosecution also shows that it would be sheer waste of the public time and money apart from causing harassment to the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in a case of S. G. Nain v. Union of India, 1992 Cr LJ 560, quashed the proceedings under Section 409, I. P. C. after lapse of about 14 years. Here in the instant case, more than 20 years have been passed but even the charges have not been framed. In view of the facts stated above, in my opinion, no effective progress has been made in this case except filing of the charge-sheet as well as filing of the original documents from the last 20 years and therefore, in my opinion, the State is not serious in persuing the criminal proceedings and, therefore, it would be again not in the interest of justice to continue further any criminal proceedings in this case.;