SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 123

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
K. K. Gupta, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1967, D/- 10-3-1970.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 134 (1) (c) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act- Section 5 (2) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 561-A – Application - Witnesses examination - Charge-sheet - Respondent was charged with an offence under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Incident in question was alleged to have taken place - Respondent alleged that charge-sheet was submitted in month and during six years only 4 witnesses were examined and examination of 16 more witnesses would therefore take 20 years - It was also alleged that 40 dates had been fixed for hearing of case but to no useful purpose - State made an application under Article 134 (1) (c) of Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court against order quashing the proceedings. In dismissing that application High Court said that since submission of charge-sheet in year case was not proceeded with either because of non-availability of Special Judge or because of adjournments taken by prosecution or of prosecution filing a Criminal Revision in High Court resulting in stay of proceedings – Held, respondent in application did not disclose all facts relating to various applications made by respondent - It is apparent that respondent, from time to time, made applications for staying proceedings, preventing case from being proceeded with – It is noticeable that High Court made an order for stay of proceedings on revision application filed by State challenging order dated passed by trial Court requiring the State to disclose report sent to obtain sanction of prosecution - Though said application is still pending in spite of an order of High Court to hear application with expedition after arrival of record, High Court passed an order quashing proceedings without consideration of these features - High Court was wrong in quashing proceedings - Order of High Court is set aside - High Court will dispose of revision application, which is pending and then send the records to trial Court as quickly as possible for expeditious trial of case - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

RAY, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from the order dated 18th April, 1967, passed by the High Court at Allahabad.

2. The High Court quashed the proceedings in case No. 24 of 1961.

3. The order was made on the petition of the respondent under Sec. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent made an application on 20th March, 1967, to the High Court at Allahabad. The respondent was charged with an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The incident in question was alleged to have taken place on 6th August, 1960. The respondent alleged that charge-sheet was submitted in the month of March 1961, and during six years only 4 witnesses were examined and the examination of 16 more witnesses would therefore take 20 years. It was also alleged that 40 dates had been fixed for hearing of the case but to no useful purpose. The High Court quashed the proceedings without giving any reason therefor.

4. At the outset it may be said that it is difficult and embarrassing for this Court to discern the reasons which weighed with the High Court in making the order.

5. The State made an application under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court against the order quashing the proceedings. In dismissing that application the High Court said that since the submission of the charge-sheet in the year 1961 the case was not proceeded with either because of non-availability of Special Judge or because of adjournments taken by the prosecution or of the prosecution filing a Criminal Revision in the High Court resulting in stay of proceedings and further that the contentions had been controverted in the counter-affidavit with the result that it was a disputed matter which could not be decided in a summary application.

6. The State in the application for special leave filed in this Court made the following allegations. The respondent was charged with the offence of receiving illegal gratification. The alleged occurrence was on 6th August, 1960. The charge-sheet after investigation was filed on 29th April, 1961. The case was fixed for the statement of the respondent in the month of January, 1962, after copies of documents upon which the prosecution wanted to rely had been furnished to the respondent. The respondent in the month of January, 1962, moved an application before the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the investigation was not legal and there was a stay of proceedings. On 10th May, 1962, the High Court at Allahabad dismissed the application by stating that the legality of investigation could be decided only after examining such witnesses as the prosecution might like to produce. On 28th July, 1962, the prosecution applied before the Magistrate for examination of witnesses. The respondent then moved a transfer application before the High Court and the proceedings were again stayed. On 9th August, 1962, the order for stay of proceedings was received by the Trial Court. The transfer application was ultimately rejected by the High Court on 30th November, 1962, and the order was received in the Trial Court on 5th December, 1962. The respondent again moved two applications for transfer of the case to Allahabad. The applications were rejected and the case was fixed for hearing on 31st July, 1963. The respondent obtained an adjournment on the ground that his counsel had gone to Allahabad. The case was adjourned till 28th August, 1963. The respondent on that date asked for an adjournment on medical ground. The case was fixed for hearing on 10th September, 1963. Three prosecution witnesses were examined on that day. The respondent raised an objection as regards the validity of the investigation but the same was disallowed. The case was fixed for hearing again on 21st October, 1963, when the respondent was to be examined. The respondent did not turn up on medical ground. He was examined on 2nd December, 1963 and th







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top