- (1.) THE accused-petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 233/88 (State vs. Prithvi Raj), wherein he is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 & 467 I. P. C. read with section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar since the year 1978.
(2.) THE skeleton facts of this case are short and simple and can be recapitulated within a narrow compass. It appears Padam Singh, Enforcement Inspector, Sri Ganganagar on 10. 8. 1978 lodged a written report at Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar that the petitioner along with co-accused Satnam were caught red handed, while they were attempting to procure eleven cement bags from M/s. Sanghi Asbestos Cement Products on the basis of forged permits. After investigation, on 5. 10. 1978, a challan was submitted against the petitioner and co-accused Satnam in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. THE case was adjourned numerous times for hearing the arguments for framing the charge and ultimately after a lapse of about 6- 1/2 years i. e. on 15-2- 1985 charges under section 420, and 467 I. P. C. read with section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act were framed. In the year 1988 co- accused Satnam died and proceedings against him were abated. THEreafter from 1. 12. 1989 till this date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and still more than four prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The sole ground raised by Shri R. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that protracted proceedings have deprived the petitioner of his liberty under a procedure, which is not reasonable, fair & just, and that such deprivation amounts to violation of his fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. He has, therefore, prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. Shri H. R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the factual position, but prays that a direction be given to the lower court for completing the trial within a stipulated period. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record of the lower court in extenso. In Hussainara Khatoon & ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1), it has been propounded that if a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, then such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Art. 21 and that he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. It was also emphasized that an accused person is entitled for a reasonably expeditious trial, which is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IN Sheela Barse & Anr. vs. Union of INdia & Ors. , (2) their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that if an accused is not tried speedily and his criminal trial remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge for unnecessary or unreasonable time, his fundamental right of speedy trial is vitiated, unless such a trial is held-up on account of an interim order passed by a superior court or due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. It was reiterated that the consequence of violation of such a fundamental right, the trial would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in prejudice to the fundamental right. Again in Shri Niwas vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (3), where the accused was facing trial for the offences punishable under sec. s 279, 304-A & 338 I. P. C. and the trial was delayed for about 9 1/2 years, there lordships of Supreme Court reiterated that quick justice is a sine qua non of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and that keeping a person in suspension state without his fault cannot be in consonance with the spirit of the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the trial stood vitiated on that account and quashed the same. In Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (4), the accused was facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 429 & 406 I. P. C. The incident occurred in the year 1981, while charge was framed in the year 1985 and only 4 prosecution witnesses were examined till September, 1990. It was held that sword of Demoglus cannot be allowed to remain hanging over the head of the accused for an indefinite period and the proceedings against him were quashed. ;