Criminal Appeal No 359 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 2971988 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl
Petition No 1023 of 1987
K Madhava Reddy and G Prabhakar for the Appellant
HS Gururaj Rao Subodh Markandeya Mrs C Markandeya WA Nomani and G Seshagiri Rao for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN J
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Director Anti Corruption Bureau Hydera bad has filed this criminal appeal challenging the correct ness of the Order dated 2971988 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No 7ACBCr
II84 dated 831984 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB  SPE quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
A few facts relevant to decide this case may be stated The respondent was selected to the Indian Police Service in the year 1953 and he worked in various capacities at different places
While he was working as Commissioner of Weights  Measures Government of Andhra Pradesh on a report dated 73
1984 submitted by the Deputy Superintend ent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau a case was registered against him on 83 1984 in Crime No 7ACBCr
II84 under Section 52 read with Section 51e of the prevention of Corruption Act 1947 on the allegations that while function ing as Commissioner of Police and later as Vice Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board during the years 1978 82 he ingulged in corrupt practices and acquired immovable assets either in his name or 749 in the name of his wife
The Anti Corruption Bureau after completing its investigation submitted its report on 2241987 to its DirectorGeneral who in turn sent the same to the Government on 179
The Government accorded the necessary sanction for prosecution in GOMs
525 and 526 dated 169
In the meantime the respondent filed the criminal petition for quashing further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the First Information Re port inter alia contending that there had been lull in the investigation for fairly long spell causing inordinate delay and that the prosecution had not filed its report contem plated under Section 173 Cr
PC till he filed the petition for quashing the proceedings in November 1987 though the case was registered even in March 1984
The plea of the respondent was stoutly resisted by the appellant stating that the delay was occasioned on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent and the case was a complicated and timeconsuming one
The High Court has quashed the First Information Report on the ground that there was inordinate delay in the inves tigation
Aggrieved by that judgment the State has pre ferred this Criminal appeal
Mr Madhava Reddy learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took an exception to the observation of the learned Single Judge of the High Court reading   
I hold that wherever there is an inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing investigation the case merits quashing of the First Infor mation Report even    Generally
this Court will not quash the FIR because it amounts to stopping of investigation but where there is an inordinate delay the same is a ground to quash even the FIR and contended that the above observation is too wide a proposition and it will be detrimental to the prosecution in future under all circumstances regardless of the reasons therefor
Though we have decided to dispose of this appeal on some other ground the submission of Mr Madhava Reddy on the above extracted observation of the High Court makes it necessary to examine the ques 750 tion whether a mere delay in the investigation of a criminal proceeding will by itself serve as a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings in pursuance of the registration of the case notwithstanding whatever may be the reasons for the delay
This question has come up for determination in a number of cases wherein this Court has examined the right of an accused for a speedy investigation and trial in a crimi nal case in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
There is no denying the fact that a lethargic and lacka daisical manner of investigation over a prolonged period makes an accused in a criminal proceeding to live every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under a fear psychosis
Therefore it is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence or ineffi ciency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvan tage to the accused the Court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the citizen will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation
While so there are offences of grave magnitude such as diabolical crimes of conspiracy or clandestine crimes com mitted by members of the underworld with their tentacles spread over various parts of the country or even abroad
The very nature of such offences would necessarily involve considerable time for unearthing the crimes and bringing the culprits to book
Therefore it is not possible to formulate inflexible guidelines or rigid principles of uniform appli cation for speedy investigation or to stipulate any arbi trary period of limitation within which investigation in a criminal case should be completed
The determination of the question whether the accused has been deprived of a fair trial on account of delayed or protracted investigation would also therefore depend on various factors including whether such delay was unreasona bly long or caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused or whether such delay was inevi table in the nature of things or whether it was due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused
The Court in addition has to consider whether such delay on the part of the investigating agency has caused grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused
The assessment of the above factors necessarily vary from case to case
It would therefore follow that no general and wide proposition 751 of law can be formulated that wherever there is inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation such delay ipso facto would provide ground for quashing the First Information Report or the proceedings arising therefrom
Our above view is supported by a decision of this Court in Raghubir Singh vs State of Bihar 1986 4 SCC 481
Reference may also be had to Bell vs Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica and another 1985 2 All England Law Reports 585 and the article in captioned The Power of the Courts to stay a Criminal Prosecution  It follows from the above observations that no general and wide proposition of law can be formulated that wherever there is any inordinate delay on the part of the investigat ing agency in completing the investigation such delay is a ground to quash the FIR Reverting to the present case the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain irregularities in the purchase of land as pointed out in the earlier part of this judgment
The State Government on the basis of the enquiry report passed orders for stopping further action and directed re instatement of the respondent into service with immediate effect by Order dated 5th September 1984
Accord ingly he was re instated and allowed to function as Con troller Weights  Measures Andhra Pradesh
However by subsequent order dated 5th July 1985 the appellant State Government cancelled the aforesaid order dated 5th Septem ber 1984 and directed the respondent to show cause as to why the penalty of compulsory retirement should not be imposed on him
Thereupon the respondent filed Writ Petition No 10670 of 1985 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the appellant contained in GO Rt
No 2930 GA SC
C Depart ment dated 5th July 1985 as arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same by holding that the appellant was bound to give effect to the Orders contained in GO Rt
No 4572 GA SC
C Department dated 5th Sep tember 1984
This writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench
The Tribu nal allowed the petition holding that the impugned order in GORt
No 2930 dated 5th July 1985 is illegal and beyond the powers of the State Government
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred a Special Leave Petition Civil No 405 of 1987 752 before this Court and this Court by its Order dated 16111988 dismissed the same
The said order reads as follows Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and specialty in view of the facts that the respondent has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation we do not consider it a fit case for interference
It is accordingly dismissed
 Admittedly the appellant notified the date of retire ment of the respondent wef 30th April 1988 by GORt
No 866 dated 10th March 1988
Accordingly the respondent was allowed to retire peacefully from service on attaimng the age of superannuation
The First Information Report and the consequent proceedings on the registration of the case were quashed by the High Court on 2971988
Surprisingly the appellant accorded sanction for prosecution in GOMs
525  526 dated 1691988 ie after nearly 50 days of the quashing of the First Information Report
In view of the above facts and circumstances and the various events following the suspension of the respondent culminating in his being allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation we are of the view that it is not a fit case for interference
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
NPV Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The respondent a constable convicted under section 10n of the but released on probation under section 4 of the  was dismissed from service
He chal lenged his dismissal before the High Court which ordered his reinstatement holding that there was no disqualification for him to continue in service for section 12 of the has the effect of removing the dis qualification attaching to his conviction
Hence this appeal by the Union of India
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court this Court
HELD 1
Section 12 of the only directs that the offender shall not suffer dis qualification if any attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law 
Such law in the context is the other law providing for disqualification on account of conviction eg if a law provides for disqualification of a person for being appointed in any office or for seeking election to any authority or body in view of his conviction that disqualification by virtue of section 12 stands re moved
But that is not the same thing to state that the person who has been dismissed from service in view of his conviction is entitled to reinstatement upon getting the benefit of probation of good conduct
Section 12 does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction theron 761 as per law
It was not intended to exonerate the person from departmental punishment
766B C 765E R Kumaraswami Aiyer vs The Commissioner Municipal Council Tiruvannarnalai and Anr  Embaru P vs Chairman Madras Port Trust Mad A Satyanarayana Murthy vs Zonal Manager LIC AIR 1969 AP 371 Prern Kumar vs Union of India  Ors 1971 Lab
 Ind Cases 823 Om Prakash vs The Director Postal Services  Ors and Director of Postal Services  Anr
vs Daya Nand  approved
The Divl
Personnel Officer Southern Railway  Anr
TR Challappan  followed
In criminal trial the conviction is one thing and sentence is another
The departmental punishment for miscon duct is yet a third one
The Court while invoking the provi sions of section 3 or 4 of the Act does not deal with the conviction it only deals with the sentence which the of fender has to undergo
Instead of sentencing the offender the Court releases him on probation of good conduct
The conviction however remains untouched and the stigma of conviction is not obliterated
In the departmental proceed ings the delinquent could be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his con viction on a criminal charge
Therefore the question of respondent s restatement into service does not arise
Howev er the penalty of dismissal from service is altered into removal from service
765C D F 766E Tulsi Ram Patel vs Union of India 1985 Suppl
2 SCR 131 and Trikha Ram vs
VK Seth  Anr  followed