Procedure is filed by the petitioners praying for a declaration that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, are illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India and further praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2253/W of 1972 on the ground that it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground of inordinate, callous, inexplicable and incomprehensible unexplained delay.

2.Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are directors of petitioner No. 5-Company. A complaint was lodged against the petitioners on the accusation that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under section 120-B, I.P.C. and section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, and section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3.It is stated that a raid was carried out in the year 1967 and a complaint was filed in the year 1972 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. A writ petition was filed in 1973 on the Original Side of this High Court complaining of discrimination in the matter of permission between the petitioners and another company viz., M/s. Wellman (India) Pvt. Ltd., doing the same business. It reveals from the record that the said petition was dismissed for default. Against the said dismissal order, petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. That petition also came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the proceedings before the Magistrate's Court was revived. However, the petitioners filed an application under section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raising various contentions regarding making a reference to the High Court and obtaining High Court's verdict regarding the validity of the prosecution launched against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on 30th June, 1986. Against the said dismissal order, the present petition has been filed in this Court.

4.It reveals that an order was passed by Daud, J., on 16th July, 1992 directing the Union of India to consider as to whether the prosecution launched against the petitioners to be continued or withdrawn. However, it reveals that no decision has so far been taken by Union of India. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the question before me is:-

Whether it would be justified and fair to allow to continue the prosecution after a lapse of nearly 30 years ?

5.Mr. Bhonsale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that delay in completing the prosecution deprives the liberty of a citizen and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, he has cited several authorities.

6.The most important question that requires to be considered by me is :

Does it deprive the personal liberty and life of a citizen in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

In the case of (Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna)1, reported in A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 1360, it has been observed thus:-

"Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21."

7.The above view is also reflected in the Full Bench Judgment in (Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar)2, reported in A.I.R. 1986 Patna 324 Full Bench, wherein it has been observed thus :---

"In all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy public trial is now an inalienable funda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document