The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental and must be upheld, with inordinate delays in prosecution warranting quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. Heard Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Jitendra Mishra, learned Special Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 – DRI and Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent No.2-State. By consent of the parties, the matter is decided finally at this stage itself, considering the reliefs sought inthis Petition. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Originally this Petition was filed by two Petitioners Mr. Dev Kumar Agarwal and Mrs. Prabha D. Agarwal in the year 2019. During pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner No.1 Dev Kumar Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Dev Kumar’) passed away on 27.12.2019. Therefore, the Petition now survives only on behalf of the Petitioner No.2 Mrs. Prabha Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Petitioner Prabha’ ), who is 86 years of age as of today. The prayer in the Petition is for quashing of C.C. No.243/CW/1996 pending before the then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai (the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 19^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai as of today). The Petition is for quashing of these proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner’s right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is seriously infringed and, therefore, the prosecution needs to be quashed on that ground alone.

3. Before referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, very briefly, the allegations in the complaint lodged against the Petitioner Prabha can be referred to as follows.

4. In the year 1983, an intelligence was received by the authorities that the Petitioner’s husband Dev Kumar (original Petitioner No.1) was having in his possession Mercedez Benz 300D Model 1983 car. It was a smuggled car. The registration papers of that car were obtained from the Regional Transport Office, Tardeo, Mumbai. It was observed that the car was registered in the name of the present Petitioner Prabha. With her application for registration, she had submitted certain documents. Those documents were Bill of Entry, no-sale bond, a photo-copy of a document known as CCP dated 14.1.1983 with the list of conditions attached to it, covering the import of that car fitted with accessories, describing her as sole representative of M/s. Etmatree Limited, London, and a photocopy of the letter issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay showing the acceptance of no-sale bond for the imported car against the said CCP. The preliminary enquiry showed that no customs duty was paid through the State Bank of India, Airport Branch, Bombay, which was the only the bank authorized to collect the amount of Customs Duty in respect of the consignments cleared through the Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay. It was apparent that the car was not validly imported and cleared through the Customs. The appropriate Customs Duty was not paid. The car was first detained on 23.6.1986 and was seized under panchnama on 22.7.1986 as it was liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. During the enquiry, statements of both the accused – (the Petitioners) were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Petitioner Prabha’s husband Dev Kumar gave the background and according to the prosecution, he gave a statement naming one Amarjeet who was instrumental in getting the car registered with the R.T.O. Dev Kumar had paid Rs.50,000/- to Mr. Amarjeet. Dev Kumar accepted that neither he nor his wife complied with the requirement of payment of the Customs Duty or other related formalities and those were to be completed by Mr. Amarjeet. Dev Kumar was not aware whether those formalities were completed by Mr. Amarjeet. Dev Kumar was informed by Mr. Amarjeet that he was the owner of M/s. Etmatree Limited, London. The documents showing payment of the customs duty were found to be bogus, but, Dev Kumar could not explain it properly. The Petitioner Prabha he