Malay Kumar Basu, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 110/79 pending before the 2nd Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore arising out of Chandernagore P.S. Case No. 13/79 dated 14th February, 1979 under Sections 468/420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also against the order dated 2nd March, 1994 passed by the said Judicial Magistrate in the said case. That case was filed against the petitioner on the basis of a written complaint to the fact that one Shri Ramayan Rout, Insurance No. 7886691 submitted Hospital Certificate along with a Regulation Certificate on 14th February, 1979 before the Insurance Company and claimed sickness benefit from 19th January, 1979 to 9th February, 1979, The said Hospital Certificate bore Serial No. 153 and Registration No. 162 of the Hospital named Employees' State Insurance, Gourhati, Hooghly. As the Hospital authority grew suspicious over that certificate they made an enquiry and it was confirmed that no such patient was admitted into the Hospital during the relevant period i.e. from 19th January, 1979 to 9th February, 1979 and no such Discharge Certificate was issued by the Hospital. Thereafter on further enquiry the Hospital authority came to know that the said Shri Rout had taken such certificate from one doctor Shri Mukherjee who was not a doctor of that Hospital, and who took his seat in an outside chamber. Thus on the basis of this forged certificate the said employee Shri Rout was trying to make wrongful gain. Under such circumstances, this complaint was lodged against the accused doctor Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee under the abovementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of this complaint the police of Chandernagore P.S. started the abovementioned case and investigated into the same and after investigation was over submitted a charge sheet on 14th January, 1980 under Sections 468/420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code before the 2nd Court, Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore against the said Shri Ramayan Rout and doctor Shri Pranab Mukherjee. On the basis of the materials on record the learned Magistrate framed charge against the said two accused. Under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code on 21st December, 1983. Then trial commenced but it has not been concluded even after the passage of 15 years from that date, although the petitioner had no latches in the matter of attendance before the Court in connection with hearing of the case. Most of adjournments were taken by the prosecution and on some dates the trial could not be held due to want of Court's time. In view of such inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of the case the petitioner having been aggrieved has filed this revisional application praying for an order quashing the entire proceeding in view of the statutory provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution providing for the fundamental right of every citizen to get speedy trial having been violated.
(2.) Miss. Biswas has drawn my attention to the order sheets of the case record of the Court of Trial Magistrate which show that on 28 occasions it was the prosecution which took adjournments and on 7 occasions hearing could not be made due to want of Court's time and only on 14 occasions it was the accused who prayed for time.
(3.) Miss. Biswas refers to a good number of decisions in support of her contention that the prosecution having failed to effect speedy trial of the case or conclusion of trial within a reasonable period the criminal proceeding itself should no longer be insisted upon, and is liable to be quashed. These rulings are as follows:-- 1. T.J. Stiphen and Ors. v. P.S. Company Pvt. Ltd. In this case 20 years elapsed since the F.I.R. was lodged but the trial could be concluded and the Apex Court did not consider it proper to allow the Magistrate to proceed with the trial any longer. 2. Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 1994 Cal. 359. 3. 2001 CCRLR (Cal.) 257 in this decision a Single Bench of this court held that as the prosecution took 27 adjournments since 1976 and the delay was found due to the prosecution's failure to get the trial expedited. It was found to be a fit case for quashing the proceeding. 4. 2001 CCRLR (Cal.) 69, here it was held by another Single Bench of this court that continuance of the proceedings any further would act the sufferings of the accused as there was no possibility of the hearing being concluded within a near future and on this ground the accused was discharged.;