Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13339 of 2011 (5) dt.07-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13339 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Surendra Nath Verma S/O Late Sidheshwar Nath Verma Resident Of 7 H.E. 2/31 Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. Agam Kuan, District Patna. 2. Nawal Kishor Prasad Singh S/O Late Raj Kumar Prasad Singh Resident Of Mohalla New Bigrahapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No.2, A.P.P. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey Ac to Raamakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. (for Vigilance) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 07-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Vigilance. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 of 1987, corresponding to Special Case No. 17 of 1987 and later on Special Case No. 127 of 2002 instituted for the offences under sections 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13339 of 2011 (5) dt.07-09-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is continuing for last 24 years without the fault of the petitioners rather it is the prosecution who has been delaying this case even after their retirement, as petitioner no.1 has superannuated from service on 31.8.2010 whereas petitioner no.2 has superannuated from service on 31.6.2008 He further submits that petitioner no.1 at the relevant point of time was Assistant Engineer whereas petitioner no.2 was Junior Engineer. The offence alleged to have taken place during the year 1986-1987 where allegation has been made for repairing of Canal and bill was prepared of Rs.24,000/- and the same was passed and finally paid. On 12.8.1987 the First Information Report was lodged for the aforesaid offences, charge sheet was submitted on 28.11.1990, court framed charges on 1.10.1994. First witness was examined on 4.2.2000 whereas last witness was examined on 8.6.2001 and thereafter the prosecution has not examined a single witness. As per the charge-sheet altogether 19 witnesses are required to be examined and still 8 witnesses left to be examined by the prosecution. He has further submitted that there was/is no hindrance from the side of the petitioners Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13339 of 2011 (5) dt.07-09-2012 as on every date they are attending the court and co- operating the prosecution. He further submits that out of four accused persons one person, namely, Sanni Khan, has already died and three persons are facing trial. He further submits that bail of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh was cancelled as his counsel had died and he had no information about the death of his counsel. He further submits that he has already filed an application before the court below for passing the appropriate order in accordance with law. Prolongation of this case without the fault of the petitioner is nothing but violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) SCC 355 where in paragraph 29 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceeding due to delay without any fault of accused on the ground of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Vigilance has filed a counter affidavit and has submitted that 14 witnesses have been examined and rest witnesses will be examined without any delay. He further submits that as the bail bond Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13339 of 2011 (5) dt.07-09-2012 of Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh has been cancelled and this is the reason that proceeding has not concluded. It has been further submitted that accused Sanni Khan has been informed to have died but no supporting material has been brought before the court in this regard. It has been mentioned in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that trial is likely to be concluded within one year as has been reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Vigilance who is conducting the case. At present this Court is not going to decide the issue of vitiating the proceeding on account of long pendency of case in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India but the fact remains that the petitioners are facing a trauma even after their superannuation. The prosecution as aforesaid in its counter affidavit has stated that they are likely to conclude the trial within one year. This Court trusts on the statement made in the counter affidavit that the prosecution will make all efforts to conclude the trial within a period of one year. It is expected that as the petitioners have already retired and they are facing trauma of this case so they will co-operate the trial. Accordingly this Court hopes and trusts that the trial will be concluded Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13339 of 2011 (5) dt.07-09-2012 within a year subject to the condition that accused persons will fully co-operate the trial. If the trial is not concluded it will be open to the petitioners, if so advised, to raise this point again. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.