IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 CRL.A.No. 258 of 2001() ----------------------- CC.25/1998 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- CBI REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.MR.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I., MR.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- P.S.VIJAYAN, CLERK, SYNDICATE BANK, ALLEPPEY TOWN BRANCH, R/O. ' CHAITHRAM', SANATHANAM WARD, ALLEPPEY. BY ADVS. MR.B.RAMAN PILLAI MR.R.ANIL, MR.ANIL K.MOHAMMED, MR.SUJESH MENON V.B., MR.JOSEPH P.ALEX. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.258 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd March, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the complainant/State against the acquittal of the accused who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B read with Sections 381, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 477A I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The acquittal of the accused was based on the guidelines given in Common Cause, a registered Society v. Union of India, reported as 1998(5) Scale page 477 which laid down outer limit for closing of the prosecution evidence and completion of trial in various types of criminal cases. In a later decision in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1999(1) KLT 173 (SC), the scope of the guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court for speedy trial was further widened by which several other types of cases were also brought in to compel the prosecution to complete its evidence without delay and to ensure that trial is closed within the time limit fixed by the apex court. A larger bench of the Supreme Court in P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578] reevaluated the principles laid under the above judicial pronouncements and held that such guidelines amounted to judicial CrlA.No.258/01 - 2 - legislation and no time limit can be fixed for completion of criminal trial as it is not sanctioned by law. In view of the subsequent pronouncement as above, it is undisputed that the acquittal of the accused which is challenged in the present appeal, had no sanction of law. 2. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution against the accused started 18 years ago and pursuant to his acquittal, his employer-Bank had initiated disciplinary proceedings and on the findings arrived at in the enquiry, his services were terminated. Setting aside the acquittal and directing him to stand trial after this long lapse of time, according to the learned counsel, would amount to harassment and inflicting on him wanton cruelty. The delay in completion of the prosecution, according to the learned counsel, is wholly attributable to the negligence of the prosecuting agency. Whatever be the grievance of the accused, in the present appeal, the legality, correctness and propriety of the acquittal order passed in favour of the accused alone can be gone into and as it is found that the accused got an unmerited acquittal, which had no sanction of law, it has to be set aside. The accused will get sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence in the trial. If at all, any prejudice CrlA.No.258/01 - 3 - is likely to be caused due to the long delay, the grievance more could be on the side of the prosecution as by this time, they will be unable to procure the witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. So, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the accused that the delay is likely to cause denial justice to him. 3. Setting aside the judgment of acquittal, the case is remitted directing the court below to expediate the trial and dispose the case, as expeditiously as possible. Parties are directed to appear before the court court below on 4th May, 2009. Send the records forthwith. The appeal is allowed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE