S.K.Gupta, J. - (1.) This revisional application has been filed, praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR Case No. 422 of 1979 arising out of Goghat PS Case No. 23 dated 27.7.1979 under sections 467/ 468/471/409/120B of the IPC. Case of the petitioner is that he along with two others, since deceased, was falsely implicated in the above mentioned case on the basis of a written complaint made by one Sri Paresh Chandra Kar. In the said complaint, it was stated that one Sri Pramathanath Kar had an account with the Badanganj Sub Post Office Kayapath being Account No. 361809, where he had deposited Rs.8,000/- and the defacto complainant was made a nominee in respect of the said amount. Pramathanath Kar used to love Paresh Chandra Kar, the defacto complainant, like his son and promised to give him Rs.8,000/-. Prior to his death, Pramathanath informed the defacto complainant about the said account and requested him that after his death to perform his sradh at Gaya after withdrawing the money, which was lying in that account. But after his death, the defacto complainant could not find out the said pass book. On enquiry, he came to know from the postmaster that 3-4 days prior to his death, Pramathanath Kar withdrew the money from the said account through messenger. The defacto complainant alleged that before his death Pramathanath was in the death bed for a long time and he was with him all along. Before his death he did not sign any paper. In the petition of complaint it was alleged that the accused persons by forging the signature of Pramathanath withdrew Rs.7,995/- from the said account with the help of postmaster Manaranjan Ghosh. On the basis of the said complaint, a police case was started in the year 1979. Said case was investigated and subsequently a charge sheet was submitted on 29.11.1984. In the mean time, two other accused persons expired. Till the submission of the charge sheet, there was no attempt whatsoever by the prosecution to expedite the disposal of the case and as such the petitioner is suffering the ordeal of a criminal case for a long period of 26 years without any trial whatsoever. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has claimed that this inaction of the prosecution is against his fundamental right to get speedy trial. So it is claimed that it is a fit case where the proceeding pending before the Court below should be quashed.
(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned advocate for both the sides. It is the admitted position that the criminal case was started in the year 1979 and charge sheet was submitted in 1984 against three accused persons. Out of those three accused persons, two have already expired and the case has abated against them. Now only the petitioner is facing the trial. According to the petitioner, during this long period of 26 years, no effective step was taken by the prosecution to conclude the trial and as such he is unnecessarily suffering due to the pendency of the said criminal case. In support of his contention, the petitioner has filed certified copy of the orders of the learned Court below. I have perused the same. It appears peculiar to me that in fact during this long 26 years no attempt whatsoever was made either by the prosecution agency or by the learned Court blow to take effective steps for early disposal of the case. Time without number the case was adjourned and the sufferance of the petitioner continued. If we look into the last order of the learned Court below dated 21.12.2004, then it will appear that on that day next date was fixed on 15.03.2005 for framing of charge. It means that during the last 26 years not even the charge could be framed against the accused. Nothing could be more deplorable than that. There is no dispute that a prosecution has got the right to prove the charge against the accused and for that reason sufficient time should be given to the prosecution. But at the same time, it cannot be disputed that the accused has also got a right to get speedy trial as far as possible. The right to get a speedy trial does not mean that the accused will not face the trial. What is necessary is that every attempt should be made so that the criminal trial can be concluded as early as possible against an accused. Prosecution cannot keep the matter pending for an indefinite period against an accused without taking any step whatsoever. If from the circumstances of a particular case, it appears that the prosecution is thoroughly negligent in proceeding with the matter, then in an appropriate case a proceeding can be quashed. In this respect, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decisions reported in 2002 C Cr LR ISC) page 497 Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka. This decision has been relied on in the decision of our High Court reported in 2004 C Cr LR (Cal) page 502 Animesh Chandra Sengupta v. The State of West Bengal. I have considered those decisions. It appears from those decisions that it would be appropriate for the Court to quash a criminal proceeding in a fit case considering the circumstances of the case. It has been observed in the case reported in 1992 (1) SCC, Page 225, Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. to the effect: "In other words, such law should provide a procedure which is fair, reasonable and just. Then alone, would it be in consonance with the command of Article 21. Indeed, wherever necessary such fairness must be read into such law. Now, can it be said that a law which does not provide for a reasonably prompt investigation, trial and conclusion of a criminal case is fair, just and reasonable? It is both the interest of the accused as well as the society that a criminal case is concluded soon. If the accused is guilty, he ought to be declared so. Social interest lies in punishing the guilty and exoneration of the innocent but this determination (of guilt of innocence) must be arrived at with reasonable despatch - reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Since it is the accused who is charged with the offence and is also the person whose life and/or liberty is at peril, it is but fair to say that he has a right to be tried speedily. Correspondingly, it is the obligation of the State to respect and ensure this right. It needs no emphasis to say, the very fact of being accused of a crime is cause for concern. It affects the reputation and the standing of the person among his colleagues and in the society. It is a cause for worry and expense. It is more so, if he is arrested. If it is a serious offence, the man may stand to lose his life, liberty, career and all that he cherishes."
(3.) In the case reported in 2002 C Cr LR (SC) Page 497 (supra) it has been held that the principle as laid down in Abdul Rehman Antulay's case still holds good. So the principle, as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that the accused should not suffer for an indefinite period for facing the trial and in an appropriate case if it is found that the prosecution is totally negligent in concluding the trial against the accused, then it would be appropriate for the Court for quashing the said criminal proceeding. In the light of the said observation, we are to judge the present case.;