MADHESHWARDHARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment is now a part of the triology, beginning with the Division Bench case of the State of Bihar v. Ram Daras Ahir, 1985 Cri LJ 584 : 1984 BBCJ (HC) 749, and expanded in the subsequent Full Bench decision in State of Bihar v. Maksudan Singh, AIR 1986 Pat 38. It is, perhaps, illustrative of the poets' hope of "freedom slowly broadening down from precedent to precedent." The significant issues, which necessitated this reference to the Full Bench in this set of two connected cases, may, perhaps, be precisely formulated as under : - (1) Whether the fundamental right to a speedy public trial enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution by presidential mandate is confined to only capital offences or is attracted to all offences generically? (2) Whether the aforesaid right to a speedy trial is applicable only to the proceedings in Court stricto sensu or includes within its sweep the preceding Police investigations as well? (3) Is a speedy trial equally mandated by both the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? (4) Whether the ratios in Ramdaras Ahir's case (1985 Cri LJ 584) (Pat) (supra) and in Maksudan Singh's case (AIR 1986 Pat 38) (FB) (supra) are applicable equally to all offences and irrespective of the fact whether the proceedings are a trial or an appeal against acquittal? (5) Whether an outer time limit to concretise the right to a speedy public trial is envisioned by principle or precedent?

(2.) The matrix of the background giving rise to the issues aforesaid may well be noticed from Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 262 of 1985 (Madheshwardhari Singh v. The State of Bihar). The facts therein perhaps unfold a tale that may well harrow up our legal souls and make jurisprudential hair stand on end, like the proverbial quills on the fretful porcupine. The petitioner, Madheshwardhari Singh, is a Class-I Government servant and is at present Poultry Development Officer under the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Bihar. More than 20 years ago, during 1964-66, he was posted as the Assistant Director, Central Poultry Farm, Patna, and one Satya Narayan Sharma, a Store Keeper, was his subordinate on the said farm. On the basis of a written complaint (Annexure '1'), made by the petitioner's successor, Syed Jalal Ahmad, Assistant Director, Central Poultry Farm, Patna, a first information report dated the 20th November, 1966, in Gardanibagh Police Station Case No. 32(11) 1966, was lodged under Ss. 467, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the said first information report, Satya Narayan Sharma alone was named as an accused. However, with the nature of the allegations made therein a cloud of suspicion was raised against the petitioner as well and the sword of damocles of being implicated therein hung perilously over his head. It was, however, not till as long as a passage of 9 years that it finally fell upon him. The Police investigation in the case dragged on, and, on the 29th September, 1975, the petitioner was also made an accused in the said case. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner, and repeatedly reiterated, that this was done with a mala fide intention in order to jeopardise the career and future promotion of the petitioner, so that he may not get promoted to the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer. It is highlighted that the supposed allegations rested, as they were sought to be, on official records, which were in the Police custody or within easy reach for all those 9 years, and, the belated stage at which he was implicated is thus by itself significant to indicate malice. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna, and, was granted provisional bail on Sunday, the 29th April, 1975, and, after numerous adjournments and extensions, the same was confirmed on the 21st of November, 1975. Thereafter, it was on the 30th of January, 1976, that a charge-sheet was filed and after cognizance having been taken, the case was transferred to Shree P. N. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, for disposal.

(3.) Despite a decade of investigation, the proceeding in Court again moved with a speed which is remarkable in its tardiness. Eighteen dates and adjournments had to be gone through for over a year and a half from the 2nd March, 1976 to the 15th July, 1977, for the supply of documents, which was only partly done by the 15th July, 1977. The charges against the accused persons were framed on the 23rd July, 1977, and, thereafter, at snails pace, the examination of nearly 40 witnesses commenced. It is the petitioner's case that those witnesses were officials and easily available at the beck and call of the respondent-State and as many as 7 of them were investigating officers in the case. Yet, for a period extending from the framing of the charges till the 19th February, 1979, only 8 witnesses were examined, and, for the next 9 dates no witness was eith6r examined or was in attendance till the 30th August, 1980. On that date one witness was examined and the Court gave the last opportunity to the prosecution to produce the rest of the witnesses by the next date. Unmindful of that directive, no witness was produced or examined on the 16th October, 1980, and, perhaps, oblivious of the earlier direction, after as many as 7 or more adjournments, the Court, on the 8th December, 1982, again gave a direction to produce the rest of the witnesses by the 11th of December, 1982. This order was again flouted and on that date no witness was present at all. A period of more than a year then elapsed, without any significant progress and the Court, on the 24th January, 1984, gave a fresh direction to produce the rest of the witnesses by the 20th March, 1984. On that date, a last opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce the rest of the witnesses by the 19th April, 1984, on which date the trial Court was compelled to close the prosecution case.