1 (1) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2052/2008 (Amitava Mukherjee Vs. State of Raj. & ors.) (2) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 391/2009 (Suman Chatarji Vs. State of Raj.) Date of Order: 06/03/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Reportable Mr. N.L.Gupta, for the petitioner(s) in Pet. No. 2052/08. Mr Samandar Singh, for petitioner in Pet. No. 391/09. Mr. Javed Choudhary, PP, for State. These Misc. Petitions have been filed by petitioners Amitava Mukherjee and Suman Chatarji for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 15/93 which is pending before the Special Judge (ACD), Jaipur for the offences under Ss. 420, 465, 201 and 120-B IPC and under Sec.5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner Amitava Mukherjee was working on the post of Director, Telecommunication, Rajasthan Police in the year 1985. Thereafter, three reports came to be lodged (70/88, 123/88 and 8/89) for the offence under Ss. 420, 465, 201 and 120-B IPC and 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Out of the said reports, the Investigating Agency submitted Final Report in FIR No. 123/88 and so far as FIR No. 8/89 is concerned, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court, in case No. 12/93, on 17.1.04. In the instant case, that is FIR No. 70/88 challan came to be filed on 5th of June, 1993, that is to say after a period of 5 years from the date of registration of the report, which was 29th of July, 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Misc. Petition (No. 302/95) for quashing of the charge-sheet 2 but without any success as the same was dismissed on 20th Jan., 1998 with the observation that the petitioner may raise his objection at the time of framing charge. 3. The learned trial Court ordered for framing of charge on 28th April, 2000. The accused petitioner then challenged the said order before this Court by way of filing a Misc. Petition (No. 471/00). The High Court while dismissing the said Misc. Petition on 10.1.2002 directed the learned trial Court to decide the case preferably within six months from that day. Subsequently, the trial proceeded and after a long delay, statements of witnesses were recorded. Ultimately, the statement of the accused was recorded on 29th October, 2007. Since then the trial in the case is pending for final arguments. The last proceedings before the learned trial Court for the said purpose was 13.2.09. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the manner in which the trial in the instant case has proceeded, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings primarily on the ground that it is the constitutional right of the accused persons to have the trial of the case completed within a reasonable time. In other words, it has been submitted that the long delay, as in the instant case, in trial of criminal case has infringed the rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the case of Mangilal Vyas Vs. State of Raj., 1992 RCC 186, Chandanmal Vs. State of Raj., S.B.Cr.Misc. Pet. No. 48/93 decided on 27.1.93, Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 3 2008(2) WLC SC 677; and Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 II AD (SC) 340. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial in the case is being proceeded in a proper manner and it cannot be said that there has been any deliberate delay. He has further submitted that the long pendency of the proceedings cannot be attributed to the prosecution. Therefore, he has submitted that the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court should not be quashed, on account of delay in trial. 6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. The material on record as well as the case-law cited by the counsel in respect of their submissions have been carefully perused. 7. Apart from the material facts taken note of by this Court, hereinbefore, that the instant case was initiated by lodging of report in the year 1988, a perusal of the summary of the order- sheets of the trial Court, which has been placed for perusal by the counsel for the petitioner and thereby marked as `X' for the purpose of identification, goes to show the manner in which the trial is proceeding. A close look to the said summary reveals that the trial has proceeded at a snail's speed so much so that investigation itself was concluded after 5 years, and thereafter, the matter proceeded in the trial court in a most casual manner. It is noteworthy that the High Court had directed, vide its order dated 10.1.02, that the matter should be decided preferably within a period of six months. But even the said directions could 4 not make the trial Court proceed expeditiously in the matter, taking into consideration the said order of the High Court or the fact that in this case, the criminal case was initiated as back as in the year 1988 and since then, the accused petitioners are facing the ordeal of trial. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has, in the summary, given various glaring facts which shows that there had not been any delay whatsoever on the part of the accused petitioners, in the conduct of the trial. Even when the accused petitioners submitted the written arguments in the case in November, 2008, the matter is still not decided because even on the last date i.e. 13.2.09, the learned Public Prosecutor had sought time. Further, in the summary note, a detail has been given about the dates of hearing when either the prosecution witnesses were not present or they were not examined for some reason or the other, including the time sought by the learned Public Prosecutor. The total adjournments on the part of the prosecution is nearly 74. On the other hand, the details of the order-sheets of the summary note shows that the accused petitioners or his counsel had sought time only on 9 occasions. Such a state of affairs of the proceeding of this case before the trial court leaves no room of doubt that the delay has not been on account of accused petitioners and the trial is proceeding in an unusual manner which has taken an inordinate time. 9. It is a well settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court since the year 1979-80 that a reasonable and expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to 5 life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, a guilty person should not escape but at the same time, a person made an accused is not harassed unnecessarily and the trial should not take an unlimited time. If a trial is proceeding for an indefinite period, it certainly amounts to infringement of fundamental rights of the accused petitioners, who are citizens of India. 10. In a plethore of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the aforesaid principle of law, to name a few, Supdt. & Remembrancer Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors., 1974 Cr.L.R. (SC) 691 Kurukshetra University & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 451, Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chouwdhary & ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305, Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S.Nayak & Anr., (1992) 1 SCC 225, Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507; and State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 (Suppl.1) SCC 335. 11. Even the High Court of Rajasthan, as back as, in the year 1989 had considered the question of speedy trial in detail and laid the law in the case of K.K.Tewari Vs. S.P.CBI, 1989 Raj. Cr. Cases 249. 12. The said principles have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, and in the latest judgment, Pankaj Kumar (supra), and Vakil Prasad Singh (supra). 13. As noted above, in the instant case, the trial had not been expedited despite of directions of this Court for deciding the case 6 within six months. Needless to say, that it is a cardinal principle of law that the directions issued by the highest court of the state must be complied with in letter and spirit, otherwise the very directions issued will be defeated. In the instant case, the continuance of the proceedings since the year 1993 certainly tantamounts to disrespect of the orders passed by the High Court. 14. Besides, a look to the proceedings of the trial court in the instant case shows that the case has already crossed a period of two decades as FIR was lodged in the year 1988. So far as trial is concerned, it had started way back in the year 1993 and it is still pending despite of a long period of more than 15 years. All this clearly shows that there has been a lethargic attitude of the prosecution as well as that of the learned courts below who have not proceeded in expeditious and an appropriate manner despite the directions issued by this Court. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the summary of the dates of hearing filed by the learned counsel clearly reflects the casual manner in which the trial has proceeded. 15. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, in a number of judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the proceeding before the trial should be broght to an end as no useful purpose would be served in allowing to continue with the instant criminal proceedings, which has a life of more than two decades. As a matter of fact, to continue such a proceeding would simulate flogging dead horse. 7 16. In the result, these Misc. Petitions are allowed and criminal proceedings No. 15/93 pending in the Court of Special Judge (ACD) Cases, Jaipur is hereby quashed and set aside. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. Gandhi/-P.A. Item no. S/18