R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certioari for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of R.C. Case No. 7 of 1987 (R), earlier pending in the Court of Special Judge,, CBI, Dhanbad, but now transferred to one of the Courts of special Judge, CBI, Ranchi on account of inordinate delay occurred in conclusion of trial which amounts to denial of the right or speedy justice which is one of the mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a glaring example of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial as the petitioner has been facing the rigors of the trial since last 20 years and still there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial and the manner in which the trial is being conducted on the part of the CBI defying the right of speedy justice to the petitioner is certainly subject to criticism. In this regard, it was submitted that the petitioner while was posted in the year 1987 as Deputy Materials Manager, Argada Area of Central Coalfield Limited at Hazaribagh, a case was lodged against him at Ranchi, vide R.C. Case No. 7 of 1987 on the allegation that the petitioner has acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and as such, case was registered under Sec. 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After the case was investigated, charge -sheet was submitted on 22.3.1988 and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken on 14.12.1988, but thereafter, it took not less tan four years in supplying the police paper that too in part and then charges were framed on 8.6.1992, Thereafter for two years virtually when no progress was made, the petitioner moved before the High Court, vide W.P. (Cri) 276 of 1994(R) for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that the prosecution failed to conclude the trial in spite of consuming much time. However, this Court directed the Court to conclude the trial within six months but CBI did not care much about that order and went on taking adjournments after adjournments for producing witnesses. Subsequently, on 22.2.1992 the trial Court in view of the law laid down in. Rajdeo Sharma's Case reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 57 closed the prosecution case and even recorded the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was challenged by the CBI before this Court and this Court set aside the said order, vide its order dated 27.1.2000 and directed the Court to conclude the trial within one year. But during that one year, not a single witness was examined and, therefore, the trial Court, vide order dated 23.1.2001 closed the evidence. Thereafter the CBI adopted another method in order to fill up lacuna by filing an application under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.2.2001 whereby prayer was made to allow prosecution to examine remaining 56 witnesses out of 70 charge -sheet witnesses. But that application was surprisingly not moved for about four years and it could only be moved on 18.2.2005 which though was allowed by the Court but directed the CBI to examine all those witnesses within six months. But during that period only 11 witnesses could be examined, though several adjournments were granted to the CBI and then an application was filed on 4.10.2005 seeking extension of time which again was granted till December, 2003 with a stipulation that no further adjournments shall be granted. However, CBI did not stict to the direction given by Court below, rather went on seeking extension of time again and again and lastly on 10.1.2006 the Court again granted time, as prayed for, to CBI for examining witnesses. Thus, it was submitted that though the case is pending since last 20 years and during this period only 29 witnesses were examined out of 70 prosecution witnesses and, therefore, this is a fit case where case of prosecution needs to be quashed as such a long delay, has certainly infringed the right of the petitioner to speedy justice as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this proposition of right to speedy justice has been propounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay's case and the same principle has been reiterated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a case of P. Ramachandra Rao V/s. State of Karnataka, whereby Hon ble Supreme Court though held that limitation to a criminal trial as put forth in common cause cases as well as Raj Deo Sharma's case is counter to the dictum of the Constitution as well as counter to the proposition laid down by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case but at the same time uphold the proposition of right to speedy trial as has been laid down in A.R. Antulay's case and, therefore, the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction either under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can pass appropriate order where it appears to the Court that right to speedy trial has been denied to a person and, therefore, criminal case pending since last 20 years is fit to be quashed.
(3.) AS against this learned Counsel appearing for the CBI submits that though CBI has not been able to examine all witnesses during this long pendency, but proceeding of a criminal trial on account of lapse of time cannot be terminated as a rule in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a case referred to on behalf of the petitioner as there could be so many unavoidable circumstances which may contribute lengthening of the proceeding and if the delay occurs on that ground then certainly once right to speedy trial cannot be said to have been defeated and in this case also there were the circumstances such as transfer of the case from Ranchi to Dhanbad and then Dhanbad to Ranchi at more than one occasions, vacancy of the office of the Presiding Officer, time consumed during the pendency of the proceeding arising out of the trial in the High Court and the Court of CBI, Dhanbad being busy with other important matters are the factors which led such delay in conclusion of the trial but the CBI will take all endeavour to see that the trial is concluded within six months from receipt of the record at Ranchi Court from Dhanbad provided no hindrance is put on behalf of the accused in smooth sailing of the trial and other unforeseen situation may not come in the way in speedy disposal of the trial.;