IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in criminal proceedings is antithesis to the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution but Court must consider each case on its own facts. Thus the delay of 4 years in investigation of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act against public servant and his wife is not unreasonably vis-a-vis volume of evidence involved to be investigated. Non delay of 2 years in getting sanction is unreasonable. Their proceedings count be quashed. But criminal proceedings against two old ladies, mother and mother-in-law of public servant first for abetment is liable to be quashed on ground of said delay.

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) (=Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947)-Offence of public servant acquiring assets in 1986 which were far in excess of his known sources of income-Wife of public servant charged for abetment of that offence-Investigation taking 4 years-Sanction taking 2 years-@ years lapsing in filing charge-Approached to High Court in writ for quashing on ground of inordinate delay in contravention of speedy trial enshrined in Art. 21 of Constitution-Dismissed on the ground that in a similar case High Court refused the relief-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether there was gross delay in investigation and sanction and in filing the charge-sheet and that such delay violates Art. 21 of the Constitution? (No).
       Held : This Court has emphasised, time and again, the need for speeding up the trial as undue delay in culminating the criminal proceedings is antithesis to the Constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Nonetheless the court has to view it from pragmatic perspectives and the question of delay cannot be considered entirely from an academic angle. In other words, the High Court and this Court, when approached by accused to quash proceedings on the ground of delay, must consider each case on its own facts. Unfortunately the delay has so permeated in our legal system that at all levels tardiness has become the leitmotif. Such a malady has been judicially reprobated and efforts have been made to curtail the delay which has developed as a systemic canker. (Para 10)
       Held further it is not disputed that the documents sought to be produced by the prosecution run into fourteen large volumes. Officials of the ACB had to take a lot of time to conduct the investigation relating to every item of assets which was suspected to be belonging to the appellant public servant. (Para 18)
       The legislature has not chosen to fix any period to take cognizance of the offence if the punishment prescribed thereto exceeds imprisonment for three years. The offence alleged against the appellant is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. These aspects were highlighted by us for the purpose of satisfying ourselves that criminal proceedings pending against the appellants cannot be quashed on the mere ground that the investigation consumed a period of four years. (Para 19)
       The delay taken for obtaining sanction from the Government cannot be attributed to the investigating officers. As pointed out earlier, sanction was applied for on 6.4.1991 and the Government accorded sanction on 21.2.1993. Though we are unable to approve the said time of two years for the Government to decide the question of giving sanction, considering the number of desks over which the matter had to pass, and the voluminous records to be studied at all levels, we hesitate to hold that the said interval was so unreasonably long as to affect the fundamental right of the appellants. The charge-sheet was laid within a few days of obtaining the sanction. (Para 20)
       Held finally for the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to quash the criminal prosecution merely on the ground of delay highlighted by the appellants. (Para 21)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 21-Speedy trial of criminal case-Appellants, other and mother-in-law of a public servant, aged ladies, charged for abetment of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act-Delay of four years in investigation, 2 years in sanction and 2 years in filing charge-sheet-Chances of conviction bloak-Whether their criminal prosecution he quashed under Article 21 of Constitution? (Yes).
       Held : Nonetheless, we are told that the only offence alleged against the two senescent lady appellants is that they abetted the public servant to commit the offence wider Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. For two reasons we are disposed to quash the criminal proceedings as against those two ladies. First is, the materials are too insufficient to prove that those two old ladies intentionally abetted the public servant in acquiring assets which are disproportionate to his known source of income. If that is the position, why should those two old ladies be compelled to embark upon a trial which, in ail probabilities, cannot end in conviction against them, even assuming that the octogenarian ladies would be able to survive till the end of the trial. Second is, the trial is not likely to end within one or two years. Even if the Special Court would strictly adhere to the directions issued by this Court in Rajdeo Sharma s case (supra) we reasonably foresee that the prosecution would be able to complete the evidence only within the farthest time permitted in Rajdeo Sharma as we can have a glimpse of the volume of documents and of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. We feel that it would be unfair and unreasonable to compel the two ladies, who by the advancement of old age would possibly have already crossed into geriatric stage, to stand the long trial having no reasonable prospect of ultimate conviction against them. We are, therefore, inclined to delink them from the array of accused and quash the criminal prosecution so far as those two ladies are concerned. We do so. (Para 22)
       Consequently held in both appeals : Thus, the appeals filed by the two lady appellants -Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Shanta Subarao Shirali -would stand allowed but the appeals filed by the appeilant-public servant Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal and his wife Anuradha Niranjan Shashittal, would stand dismissed. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. Two lady octogenarians feel that there is not much time ahead of them to complete a trial which is yet to begin, and counting the number of years which the investigation consumed for finalising the charge-sheet, the trial would not be anything less than a long drawn out one. The two ladies approached the High Court of Bombay, along with their kinsfolk, who too are arrayed in the same case, one of them as the kingpin, to get the criminal case axed down at the threshold of the trial stage, mainly on the ground of long delay in completing the investigation. But the High Court, instead of snipping down the case charge-sheeted, dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that in a similar case the High court refused to countenance similar contention.

3. The facts, barely necessary for disposal of these appeals, can be stated thus: Appellant Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal is a Government servant who attained the rank of Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Prohibition and Excise of the Maharashtra Government (he will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant-public servant ). Appellant Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal who is now aged 83, and Shanta Subarao Shirali, who is now aged 81, are the mother and mother-in-law of the appellant-public servant, respectively. His wife Anuradha is also an appellant as she too was arrayed as accused.

4. On the basis of some information received by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACS for short) a preliminary enquiry was conducted and on 26.6.1986 an FIR was lodged against the appellant-public servant for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This was immediately followed by raids conducted at the places which the ACB officials believed to be the buildings

of the appellant-public servant situated at Mumbai and Nasik. The raids and certain other enquiries conducted by them revealed that appellant-public servant had acquired assets worth Rs.33.44 lacs, in the year 1986, which were far in excess of his known sources of income. The investigation was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the ACB and he submitted the final report to his superior who was the Director of ACB, in July 1990. After the draft final report was approved the ACB approached the Government of Maharaohtra on 6.4.1991 for obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant-public servant. The Government accorded sanction on 22.1.1993 and thereupon the charge sheet was laid against all the appellants on 4.3,1993 before the Special Court dealing with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offence alleged against the appellant-public servant was under Section 13(2) read with Section l3(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The offence alleged against the lady appellants was abetment of the offence pitted against the appellant-public servant.

5. All the appellants appeared before the Special Judge on 14.1.1994 when process was issued to them. The next posting in the said court happened to be only after the lapse of one year. On he said day appellants moved some interlocutory applications. After posting the case on different future dates for disposal of such interlocutory applications, the case moved at a slow pace and reached the stage of hearing preliminary arguments for considering whether charge should be framed or not. It was in the aforesaid context, that the appellants filed the writ petition before the High Court of Bombay on 15.4.1997 for quashing the criminal proceedings.

6. The main ground urged in the writ petition is that there was gross delay of 11 years for filing the charge-sheet and that such delay violates Article 21 of the Constitution. According to the appellants, such delay had caused unbearable mental trauma, fear psychosis and tension to them as well as to the other members of the, family, besides tremendous humiliation and defamation heaped on them. They also said t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 271

Cases Referred (5)