The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely legal procedures, including the filing of charge-sheets and securing necessary sanctions, to uphold the accused's right to a speedy trial.

By this common judgment and order both these writ petitions are disposed of. These writ petitions are filed against order dated 12th March 2009 rejecting the petitioners' application seeking discharge in Special Case No.56/2007. There are two sets of accused in the in this special case who have independently filed the petitions. The main accused (Accused No.1), admittedly, is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.741/2009 and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.676/2009 are the accused Nos.2 to 5. The case has a checkered history and the same is stated in short as under:

2. I would refer the petitioners by their designation in the lower court. Accused No.1 was working as Senior Police Inspector in 1990 at Kanjurmarg Police Station, Mumbai. Some time in the year 1990, the Anti Corruption Bureau laid a trap and arrested accused No.1 while accepting bribe. They completed investigation in the case and filed charge sheet. This was a case tried as Special Case No.78/1990. At around same time, the Anti Corruption Bureau also paid visit to the household and bank lockers of accused No.1 and took note of the assets held by him. They recorded an independent crime against accused No.1 in Crime No.27/1990 for the offences punishable under section 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The record shows that as against income of accused No.1 approximately Rs. 5 lac in the check period, he was found possessing movable and immovable assets worth Rs. 10 lac. That apparently was disproportionate to the known sources of his income. So, lodging of the complaint and registration of the crime was quite justifiable. They continued investigation in that crime and, in 1994, they apparently recorded last statement of witness in that case. The accused No.1 continued in service till 1995. In the meantime, the special case arising from incident of trap was already committed and was going on. It got concluded on 26th June 1997 and resulted in acquittal. No appeal was filed against the said judgment.

By 1997, accused No.1 was already retired. The Anti Corruption Bureau thereafter filed charge-sheet in Crime No.27/1990 (disproportionate assets case) against not only accused No.1 but also his family members i. e. his wife, grownup children (two daughters and one son) in the special court on 2nd July 1997. Apparently, the learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process against all the accused. The case remained pending. On 17th December 2005 rather belatedly the prosecution filed an application for withdrawal of the charge-sheet on the ground that sanction obtained for prosecuting accused No.3 was defective. The learned Judge examined the sanction order and opined that it was grossly defective. He, however, allowed the prosecution to withdraw the charge-sheet against all the accused and file a fresh chargesheet against accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and file additional chargesheet against accused No.4. Within six months (on 11th July 2006) a new charge-sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution did not file a report (short report) under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) along with the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet comprises of only the documents and statements of the witnesses as is required under Sub-Section 5 of section 173 of Cr.P.C. From the proceedings, it appears that on 6th November, 2006, the Learned Judge of the Trial Court expressed his desire to hear the Investigating Officer, before issuing process against the accused and ultimately, on 23rd January, 2007, the Learned Judge passed a speaking order, as to why he would take cognizance of the offence as against only the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. He specifically mentioned in the order that he would not take cognizance of the offence as against accused No.4 but he gave liberty to the prosecution to file a separate charge sheet against her. It appears, thereafter no charge sheet was filed against accused No.4.

4. On 10th August, 2008, the petitione