Back
1996 Supreme(Pat) 822
PATNA HIGH COURT
D.P.Wadhwa and R.M.Prasad JJ.
R.K.Mandal
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 480 of 1986 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 18, 1996
Unexplained delay in investigation and trial violates the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - DELAY IN TRIAL - SPEEDY TRIAL - RIGHT TO - VIOLATION - QUASHING OF PROSECUTION - PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COURT IN ANTULEY'S CASE (1992) 1 SCC 225 - APPLIED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, public servants, were accused of misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds. The investigation took seven years to be completed, and the charge sheet was submitted after a further delay of three years. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to quash the prosecution on the ground of violation of their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in investigation and trial was unexplained and unreasonable. The court also noted that the petitioners had been exonerated of the charges in a departmental enquiry. The court concluded that the petitioners' right to a speedy trial had been infringed and that the prosecution against them was liable to be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in investigation and trial violated the petitioners' fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioners' right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by the long delay?
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Antuley's case (1992) 1 SCC 225, which held that unexplained delay in investigation and trial violates the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that the delay in the present case was unreasonable and that the petitioners' right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by the long delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order proceeding of Special Case No.169 of 1983 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna.
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. In this writ petition the prayer on behalf of the petitioners is for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution pending against them before the Special Judge, vigilance, Patna, being Special Case No.169 of 1983 arising out of Vigilance P. S. Case No.53 of 1979.
2. The sole ground taken in the writ petition for quashing of the said criminal prosecution is its continuance for more than seven years allegedly infringing their fundamental rights of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Earlier a Division Bench of this court, vide judgment and order dated 29th June, 1995, had allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned proceeding of Special Case No.169 of 1983. Against the said judgment of the division Bench of this Court, the. State of Bihar preferred S. L. P. (Crl.) 4203 of 1995 in the Supreme Court in which leave was granted and the said S. L. P. was registered as Criminal Appeal No.621 of 19%.
4. The writ petition was filed mainly in view of the Full Bench judgments of this Court in Madheshwar Dhari singh V/s. The State of Bihar (1986 PLJR 767:1986 BLJ 503) and State of Bihar V/s. Naksudan Singh (l986 PLJR 38 ). Against the said judgment State had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court in which special leave was granted and until further orders, the operation of the judgment and order of this Court was stayed by the Supreme Court. In view of the said order, this Court, vide order dated 20th March, 1987, considered proper to stay its hands till the correctness of the ratio of the aforementioned two judgments of this Court had been tested in the final Court. Accordingly, this Court directed that all the criminal writ jurisdiction cases shall await the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of state of Bihar V/s. Madheswardhari Dhari singh and Dilip Kumar Dey.
5. It appears that the Division bench of this Court, while hearing this matter, quashed the impugned proceeding on the ground that it was stale relying upon the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of S. G. Nain V/s. Union of India (AIR 1992 S. C.603 ). The supreme Court, noticing the fact that even though the writ petition of the respondents was to await the judgment in Madheshwar Dhari Singhs case obviously for disposal in terms thereof and that case had already been disposed of with another batch of writ petitions (Abdul Rehman Antuley V/s. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225), neither of the parties brought these facts to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition as also the fact that the judgment in Antuleys case (Supra) was delivered by a Bench of five Judges and that too after disposal of Nains case (Supra), set aside the impugned order and directed this Court to dispose of the writ-petition in the light of the principles laid down in Antuleys case (Supra ). Accordingly, now this matter has been finally heard by us.
6. It is pertinent to note two facts giving rise to the special case in question. The said case was instituted against the petitioners and others on a written report of Shri Sudarshan Prasad singh, Additional Superintendent of police, Vigilance, dated 18.9.1979 under sections 420,120-B, 467, 468, 409, I. P. C. and 5 (2) and 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with 109, I. P. C. on 19.9.1979.
7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners, who are officers of the Irrigation Department, along with other Officer Shri A. M. S. Zoha in conspiracy with each other auction sold scrap iron from the Yantrik Karamshala of the Department at Dehri-on-Sone to shri Ram Milan Singh of M/s. Pashupati iron Stores, Varanasi, at a much lower price than the actual price. It is also alleged that instead of scrap iron useful irons were allowed to be taken out by the buyer from the said Karamshala, the weight of which was about 14.136 metric Tonnes (M. T.) more than what was shown in the record. This way the accused persons caused ill
