Back
1993 Supreme(Raj) 295
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.BALIA
GANGA RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRI. MISC. PETN. 412 Of 1989
Decided On : 08/26/1993
D.S.Shishodia, K.L.Thakur, SURESH SHRIMALEE
Inordinate delay in criminal proceedings, which is not attributable to the accused and which results in prejudice to the accused, can lead to the quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - SPEEDY TRIAL - RIGHT TO - DELAY IN TRIAL - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were filed for quashing the same proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, as Criminal Case No. 436 of 1980. The petitioners, Jugal Kishore and Ganga Ram, were accused of offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved allegations of misappropriation of pledged goods by the petitioners, who were officials of a cooperative bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Undue delay in criminal proceedings can lead to prejudice to the accused and may result in the violation of their fundamental rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in the trial violated the petitioners' right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the delay was inordinate and prejudicial to the petitioners? 3. Whether the proceedings should be quashed due to the delay?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential component of the fundamental right to life and liberty. It emphasized that the procedure established by law for depriving a person of their liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just, and that undue delay in criminal proceedings can render the trial unfair. 2. The court examined the facts of the case and found that there had been an inordinate delay of over 18 years since the alleged occurrence of the offense and over 14 years since the filing of the challan against the petitioners. The court noted that charges had not yet been framed and no witnesses had been examined. 3. The court concluded that the delay was sufficient to raise a weighty presumption of prejudice against the petitioners, even without any additional evidence of prejudice. The court found that the petitioners were not primarily responsible for the delay and that the prosecution had been at fault in making delays in the investigation and filing piecemeal challans.
Final Decision: The court allowed both petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Original Case No. 436/80. The court also directed that the records of the lower court be sent back immediately.
R. BALIA, J.
( 1 ) THE aforesaid two petitions under S. 482 of the Criminal P. C. (for short hereinafter to be referred as the Code) are for quashing the very same proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur as Criminal Case No. 436 of 1980. Hence, they are being disposed of by one common order.
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
( 3 ) A First Information Report was lodged on 28/11/1972 by Ramdeen Choudhary, Manager, Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank, Nagaur, Branch-Deedwana, before the Station House Officer, Deedwana. According to F. I. R. Molasar Masala Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Molasar whose Secretary at the relevant time was Jugal Kishore, took loan of Rs. 33975. 19 Paise on 25/08/1971 from the Bank and as security for the said loan grinded red chillies were pledged with the Bank on that very date. The said pledged goods after weighing were stored in boxes and the boxes were kept with Bhagirath Cashier and Godown Keeper of the Bank, in room No. 2 of the Bank premises. One key of the lock was kept with Jugal Kishore. Loan for Rs. 35,000. 00 was applied for by Jugal Kishore, Secretary of the Molasar Masala Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Molasar which was irregularly sanctioned by the Chairman of the Bank. The weighing details were written in the handwriting of Bhagirath. On 23/06/1972 the complainant had come to verify the pledged goods. On verification by Ramdeen in the presence of other members of the Society and local M. L. A. , it was found that boxes contained stones and sand and not the grinded red chillies. Hence the first information report on 28/11/1972.
( 4 ) THREE years later, after investigation in the first instance the police filed challan against Jugal Kishore under Sec. 420, I. P. C. and against Sugan Singh and Bhagirath Ram only under Secs. 420, 468 and 109, I. P. C. on 24/12/1975. On 23/02/1976, Bhagirath moved an application that cognizance be taken against Purshottam, Jaiprakash Agarwal and Ganga Ram. On this application the Magistrate on 13/01/1977 directed the police to make further investigation and obtain relevatnt document from the courts in accordance with rules. The investigating agency was directed to complete the investigation and submit its report by 14/02/1977. However it took almost two years before the investigating agency submitted its report. The additional challan was filed on 27/02/1979 against Chaina Ram, Chairman of the Bank, for sanctioning loan beyond his powers and Gangaram the then Branch Manager of the Bank under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120b, I. P. C. It was also requested that charge under S. 120b may be added against Jugal Kishore, Sugan Singh and Bhagirathram in challan filed against their. On 20/05/1980, the case was transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate on an application filed by A. P. P. under S. 322 of the Code on 16/04/1980. Thereafter, Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against Purshottam Soni on 4/09/1981 and issued process to him. On 26/09/1981 bail application of Purshottam Soni was accepted and the Court directed the A. P. P. to deliver the copies of challan papers to the accused Purshottam Soni. Such copies were not delivered to the accused up to 24/08/1984. On Au 24/08/1984 also only incomplete copies were delivered. It appears that full set of papers was delivered to said Purshottam Soni. Meanwhile, Purshottam had challenged the Order of the Court taking cognizance against him by revision. The Court recorded on 6/12/1985 that revision of Purshottam has been accepted.
( 5 ) NO charges have yet been framed.
( 6 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances these two petitions have been filed by accused Jugal Kishore and Ganga Ram under S. 482 of the Code on 17/10/1989 and 3/01/1990 respectively for quashing the proceedings on the ground that their right of speedy and fair trial has been infringed which is integral part of fundamental right of liberty enshrined under Art. 21 o
