JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for the Department of Vigilance Investigation Bureau.

2. This writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing of the Entire criminal Proceeding pending against the petitioner in Special Case No. 13/95 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 56 /95 under Sections 409/120B IPC and under Sections of 13(2) 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance 1st, Patna.

ii. Any other appropriate writ/order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

Brief Facts of the Case:-

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as back as on 04.09.1995, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 56 of 1995 was registered against him under Sections 409/120B IPC and Section 13(1)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’).

4. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner being Assistant Electrical Engineer, Barauni lodged one Barauni P.S. Case No. 204 of 1998 for the alleged theft of Transformer Oil under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). After investigation of the said case, a final form was submitted stating that the case was untrue and it was recommended to initiate proceeding under Section 182 IPC against the informant. It was found by the investigating agency that the valve and oil of the transformer was not stolen and transformers were supplied by the company with 10% extra oil. The agency took a view that with ill intention and to get personal benefit, Barauni P.S. Case No. 204 of 1988 was lodged after much delay.

5. After lodging of the FIR on 05.09.1995, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on 05.08.1999. The learned court took cognizance of the offence on 16.08.1999. In the charge-sheet, altogether 21 persons have been named as witnesses. The petitioner surrendered in the learned court below in connection with this case and was granted bail by this Court on 23.07.1997. It is the specific statement of the petitioner in paragraph ‘10’ of the writ application that since 17.06.1997, the petitioner is regularly appearing in the trial court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that in this case, charges were framed as back as on 21.08.2002 but the trial has yet not been concluded. The last witness examined in the trial was on 28.07.2017. The villagers Shri Sachidanand Rai and Vidyanand Rai who were made witnesses in the case to support the prosecution case have turned hostile.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on 28.01.2009, a petition was filed in the learned trial court on behalf of the petitioner to close the prosecution evidence on the ground that after six years of framing of charge only 4 prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter, summons, bailable warrant of arrests and non-bailable warrant of arrests were issued and all processes were issued by the learned trial court for appearance of the witnesses. Out of 21 prosecution witnesses, 19 prosecution witnesses are official witnesses. Except PW-8 and PW-9, who are the villagers, all other prosecution witnesses are only the formal and official witnesses. It is submitted that the huge delay in conclusion of trial has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner faced a departmental proceeding in which vide resolution no. 602 dated 12.05.1997 he was dismissed from service. The said punishment was challenged in this Court in CWJC No. 1924 of 1998. This Court vide its order dated 15.07.2015 passed in CWJC No. 1924 of 1998 quashed the punishment order with all consequential benefits. The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits.

8. Learned Senior counsel submits that the pe