MIHIR KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The question involved in this writ petition is whether the writ court is entitled to quash criminal proceeding for inordinate delay in framing charges and keeping the trial pending for unusually long time.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that on the basis of First Information Report dated July 31, 1973 for the commission of alleged offence by the petitioner between the period of May, 1971 to March 1972 a case under section 468, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 5(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1946 was started against the petitioner and others. The learned Special Judge, 4th Additional Special Court took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections examining the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner appeared before the court on all the dates fixed except on 16th August, 1977 due to his illness. The Public Prosecutor in-charge of the said case, however, did not examine all the witnesses during the long period commencing from 1976 to March, 1987. The petitioner states that no charge could be framed against the petitioner during this long period and as such on 25th June 1987 the petitioner moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing-of the trial. It is the case of the writ petitioner that as an accused person he has a constitutional right to speedy and public trial following from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which is in parimateria with the express constitutional guarantee inserted by the 6th amendment in the American Constitution. According to the petitioner the right to a fair, just and reasonable procedure as guaranteed by Article 21 has been violated and as such the petitioner is entitled to an unconditional relief and the criminal proceeding initiated against him should be halted. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that because of gross and inordinate delay in conducting trial the petitioner is entitled to claim that the trial itself should be halted and the charges leveled against him should be quashed. It is also the contention of the writ petitioner that under the provision of sections 157, 167(2) and section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Police Regulations of Bengal speedy completion of investigation and also expeditious disposal of the public trial have been provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that continuation of the trial for such long period from the date of offence is not to bc permitted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner has been grossly and gravely prejudiced by the sword of Democles hanging over his head for more than 15 years. The delay in holding trial is not due to the default on the part of the petitioner in any event. On the basis of the allegations against the petitioner in respect of the offices and because of the pendency of the Criminal Procedure the pension and other retiring benefits of the petitioner have been withheld.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that because of inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution to frame charges and to conclude the trial the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed for no fault of the petitioner. Because of such unusual delay the petitioner should not be made to suffer as he is not in default at all. Under such circumstances he prayed that the charges against the petitioner be quashed and criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner be halted for protecting the guarantee provided to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.