Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Yarramsetti Ganapathi Rao Ganapathi – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4478 of 2019
Decided On : 02-09-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - DELAY IN TRIAL - SECTION 482 CRPC - RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - GUIDELINES LAID DOWN IN A.R. ANTULEY CASE - APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES - POWER OF COURTS TO TERMINATE TRIAL OR PROCEEDINGS DUE TO DELAY - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - DUTY OF COURTS TO EXERCISE POWERS UNDER SECTIONS 309, 311 AND 258 CRPC - ROLE OF UNION OF INDIA AND STATE GOVERNMENTS IN STRENGTHENING JUDICIARY - SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCES - COVID-19 PANDEMIC - DISMISSAL OF PETITION WITH DIRECTION TO TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF CASE WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, accused of exchanging fake currency notes, sought to quash the proceedings against him due to delay in trial. The charge sheet was filed in 2012, and the trial had not yet commenced.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that mere delay in the conclusion of the trial is not a ground to quash the proceedings. The offenses alleged against the petitioner were serious in nature and caused loss to the exchequer of the State. The court also considered the intervention of the Covid-19 pandemic, which had stalled trials in courts for about two years.
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed due to delay in trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] and held that the criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause case (I) [(1996) 4 SCC 33 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 589], Raj Deo Sharma case (I) [(1998) 7 SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692] and (II) [(1999) 7 SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1324] could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition but directed the trial court to dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimvaram, West Godavari district, as against the petitioner, who is arrayed A.4 in the said Sessions Case.
2. A charge sheet has been filed in crime No. 36 of 2011 of Undi police station against the petitioner/A.4 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with 34 IPC. Brief facts of the case of prosecution may be stated as follows:
A.1 to A.6 are close associates and they are eking out their livelihood by exchange of fake currency notes with a view to get more money in a short period. A.1 introduced himself to A.2 in Central Prison, Rajahmundry while A.2 was in jail. A.2 was instructed by A.1 to arrange four other persons to exchange fake currency stating that he would provide the fake currency for changing the same in market for getting more money. Accordingly, A.2 developed friendship with A.3 to A.6 and advised them to work with him for change of fake currency and they agreed for the proposal of A.2. On 15.04.2011 at about 10.00 AM at Uma Maheswari Rice Mill turning, Railway Station Road, Undi, the Sub Inspector of Police along his staff found A.2 to A.6 chit-chatting with each other, and on seeing arrival of police, they tried to skulk away. With the help of his staff, the Sub Inspector caught hold them and got their confessional statements drafted and seized the fake currency notes from the other accused, whereas from petitioner/A.4 is concerned, Rs. 20,000/- fake currency each containing Rs. 100/- denomination was seized from him, under cover of mediators report. The Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused and registered a case in crime No. 36 of 2011, and after completion of investigation, Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram laid the charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only with a view to harass the petitioner, the present case is foisted against him, and the mediators report is baseless; that though the case was registered in the year 2011, the same has not been proceeded with further for the last 11 years and trial has not yet commenced for the reasons best known to the concerned authorities, and in view of the fact that trial has not commenced, the petitioner/A.4 is entitled for quashing the proceedings. He relied on the decision in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2022) 4 SCC 578, wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 29)
'For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common Cause case (I) [ (1996) 4 SCC 33 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 589] [as modified in Common Cause (II) [ (1996) 6 SCC 775 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 42]] and Raj Deo Sharma (I) [(1998) 7 SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692] and (II) [(1999) 7 SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1324] the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In conclusion we hold:
(1) The dictum in A.R. Antulay case [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] is correct and still holds the field.
(2) The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay case [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions.
(3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard-and-fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made.
(4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. T
Mere delay in the conclusion of the trial is not a ground to quash the proceedings, especially when the offenses alleged are serious in nature and cause loss to the exchequer of the State.
The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows quashing of proceedings only when no prima facie case is disclosed, with issues surrounding evidence and role requiring trial evaluation.
The existence of sufficient prima facie evidence against an accused necessitates trial proceedings despite allegations of procedural delays in criminal cases.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
