Y.R. Meena, J. - (1.) By these six petitions, it has been prayed that there is no progress in the trial court not even a single witness has been examined so far, therefore, these proceedings be quashed. Since common Issue is involved in all these six petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The petitioner, in all these petitions, was employee of Poddar Spinning Mills since 1972. From the period January, 1976 to Nov., 1976, he has changed the figures of various bills and thereby dishonestly put the complainant in loss of Rs. 547.85. The details of various bills and interpolation by him in the bills of various firms are given as under:- JUDGEMENT_93_LAWS(RAJ)8_19961.html
(3.) Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of their Lordships in case of Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, [1994 SCC (Cr.) 1663] , wherein, in para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships have observed as under:- "It is true that the charges against the appellant relate to misappropriation of public funds. In such a case, we should take a more stricter view as Indicated In the Constitution Bench decision in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225] , But there are certain circumstances in this case which induce us to interfere in the matter. The most glaring one is that even though the FIR was issued on 10.12.1977, the charge-sheet was filed only on 5.2.1983, i.e., after a lapse of 5 years. No explanation is forthcoming for this extraordinary delay. Maybe, this being a case of misappropriation of public funds, the investigation may have taken a longer time but it cannot certainly take more than five years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Added to the said circumstance is the fact that even though there was no stay in this special leave petition Criminal appeal, the case has not progressed much as stated above. Moreover, the appellant has been dismissed from sene on these very allegations. His provident fund and gratuity amounts have been forfeited and he has crossed the age of superannuation. Calling upon him now to enter upon defence, after 16 years, in all the facts and circumstances of the case, is bound to cause prejudice to him.";