IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.39265 OF 2008 PANDEY GIRIJA SHANKER PRASAD, SON OF LATE PANDEY RAMESHWAR PRASD SINGH, RESIDENT OF BANK COLONY, PHAJALGANJ, POLICE STATION SASARAM, DISTRICT SASARAM. AT PRESENT, RESIDING AT PRANJAL APARTMENT, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, FLAT NO. 402, POLICE STATION SHRIKRISHNAPURI, DISTRICT PATNA .................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE VIGILANCE, SOUTH BIHR, PATNA ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. B. K. SINHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. INDRAJEET BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE MR. MANISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE VIGILANCE :- MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ************** 3 04/08/2011 Heard Counsel for the parties. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2008 passed in Special Case No. 71 of 1985 (Vigilance Case No. 14 of 1985) by which the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna has rejected the petition to discharge the petitioner for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 120B, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is shameful that the Vigilance Department has taken about 26 years to get to the stage of framing of the charges. The First Information Report was instituted on 03.09.1985. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. Subsequently, in course of investigation, his name has transpired and charge 2 sheet was submitted on 28.11.1992. Cognizance has been taken in this case on 03.07.1993 and since then, the matter has been pending for trial. The main issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire proceedings ought to be quashed on the ground of delay as it infringes the right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar [2009 3 SCC 355]. In the case aforesaid, the facts were that the occurrence took place on 08.04.1981. It is alleged that one of the Assistant Engineers of the Bihar State Electricity Board (civil), Muzaffarpur demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification. The trap was conducted and money was recovered. The cognizance was taken on 09.12.1982 and thereafter no further steps were taken till the year 1998. Vakil Prasad Singh filed a case for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that an application was filed for re-investigation after a lapse of seven & half years after the order passed by the High Court. Ultimately, the charge sheet was submitted in the case on 05.05.2007. It had been argued that 28 years had elapsed and trial had not commenced and, therefore, it was an infringement of 3 Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court under these circumstances quashed the proceedings. In the present case, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that now the case is ready for hearing. Charges have been framed and the delay has been caused because one of the Government accused persons has died during the pendency of the case and the Vigilance Department requires that this aspect should be verified before the trial commences. I accordingly direct that the prosecution i.e. the Vigilance Department should make verification within a period of two months from today and thereafter the Court should proceed with the trial of the case within a period of one month thereafter. It is expected that once the witnesses have been produced before the Court for deposition, the trial would proceed smoothly without there being any unnecessary delay, and the trial will be concluded within a reasonable time. Considering the submission on behalf of the petitioner that only three named witnesses in the charge sheet. Both the parties would naturally have to co-operate during the trial of the case. At best, the trial should not take longer than four months to conclude. If the trial does not conclude within the aforesaid period of four 4 months, applying the principles of Vakil Prasad Singh, this Court orders for quashing of the Special Case No. 71 of 1985 (vigilance Case No. 14 of 1985). The Special Judge may pray for extension of time, giving proper reasons for making such a prayer before this Court. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)