- (1.) In order to try his luck again, this application has been filed by Kanti Prasad Khaitan, praying for quashing of the criminal prosecution under sections 120B/420/468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code pending against him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas(South). On two occasions earlier, his efforts, however, was proved futile. The number allotted to this application indicates unmistakably that it was filed long back in the year 2007.The earlier applications were taken out in the year 1989 and 1998. During this long passage of time, neither the applicant/accused lost his hope of exoneration from the charges without being tried nor the Ld. Court of Magistrate could able to proceed with the trial owing to the orders of stay passed by this court time to time on the prayer of the applicant/accused.
(2.) It is not necessary to refer to the factual aspects in details. Suffice it to state that the applicant/accused and another indulged themselves in corrupt practice and fraudulent activities and thereby dealt with public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- in clandestine manner. However, before the C.B.I could place the charge-sheet before the court on 30.5.1989 against them on conclusion of the investigation into the allegations and aspersions put forth in the F.I.R . lodged by the Bank of Baroda, the money they allegedly cheated was paid with interest and the Bank of Baroda accepted the same in writing as well as returned the money paid in excess. This happened on 05.9.1988, i.e., before the charge-sheet was filed and the earlier Revision application being No. CRR 952 of 1998 was filed and disposed of. While rejecting the prayer for quashing, this court in C.R.R.- 952 of 1998 had the occasion to consider the factum of payment made by the applicant/accused , acceptance of the same by the bank and returning of the excess money. There is , in fact and substance, no change in the circumstance enabling the applicant/accused to agitate the same issue again and afresh. However, being aware of rejection of the earlier application , Mr. Dastoor, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused put much stress on Right to speedy trial this time. He advanced two-fold contention :----------firstly ,the Bank of Baroda is having no scope for further grievance in view of the fact that the money allegedly cheated has been deposited in the bank by his client and that too with interest and secondly , more than two decades have been passed since initiation of the proceeding without any trial and progress in the prosecution resulting in gross violation of Right to speedy trial which is an essential component of Article-21 of the constitution of India.
(3.) Mr. Himanghsu De , Ld. Counsel for the C.B.I./O.P. opposed both the contentions of Mr. Dastoor and submitted that subsequent deposit by the applicant /accused has no impact ,whatsoever , on the offence allegedly committed. Subsequent deposit , in a case of like nature , does not minimize either the gravity of the offence or the criminality of the perpetrators. Mr. De contented further that the petitioner cheated the bank in respect of huge public money and that has been established prima facie. So , the question of quashing of the prosecution does not arise. Mr. De contented further that the petitioner himself contributed liberally to the delay in the criminal proceeding . One who himself caused delay in the proceeding , can not shout after words that his right to speedy trial is denied. One must suffer and bear the pain for his own fault and deliberate attempts to stall the criminal prosecution.;