TIBREWAL, J. -In all the above three Criminal Misc. Petitions, the petitioner has prayed to quash criminal proceedings pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti-corruption Cases) Jaipur on the ground of delay. As there is a common ground in all the petitions, they may be disposed of conveniently by a common order.

(2). The old saying justice delayed is justice denied has now been given shape in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. After dynamic interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Menaka Gandhis case (1) the judgment of the apex court of the country in Hussamara Khatoons case (2) has further expanded Article 21 in dispensation of criminal justice recognizing the right to speedy trial as a part and parcel of the fundamental right. The constitutional position is now well settled, the right to a speedy trial is one of the dimensions of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3). However, the application of this doctrine is a vexed question. While a speedy trial is an implied ingredient of a fair trial, the converse is not necessarily true. A delayed trial is not necessarily an unfair trial. Therefore, several questions arise for consideration in this connection when the matter is judicially examined by a court of law, some of them are : —

(i) How long is the delay and whether it is unreasonable?

(ii) Was to delay inevthitable having regard to the nature of the case, the sparse availability of legal services and other relevant circumstances?

(iii) Was any part of the delay caused by the wilfullness or the negligence of the prosecuting agency?

(iv) Was the delay causes beyond the control of the prosecuting and defending agency?

(v) If there any likelihood of the accused being prejudiced in his defence?

(vi) Whether inordinate delay itself is sufficient to drop the criminal proceedings without any prejudice to the accused?

(vii) Whether any outer delay can be spelt from the date of commission of the offence to be the period beyond which a criminal proceeding is not to be continued at all?

(4). In order to find out the causes of delay and the effect of delay in the trial of the present cases it is necessary to examine the facts in nut-shell:

(5). The Secretary, Rajasthan Vigilance Commission, Jaipur (Rajasthan) made a complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur with reference to a complaint made by the then Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) Circle-III, Jaipur. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the then Executive Engineers, District Division, Jaipur, Sh. P.C. Tripathi and Sh. H.P. Kuchhar, in collaboration with the Asstt. Engineer Sh. L.D. Sapra and Overseer Sh. J.P. Gupta, had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6,31,735.00 against the allotment of Rs. 3,00,000/- in breach of General Financial and Account Rules and that Sh. P.C. Tripathi has also made excess payment of Rs. 2,56,124.00 as compared to the actual work done by the contractors. Hence, a prayer was made for investigation in the matter as large amounts of Government money were involved and the allegations against the officers were serious.

(6). The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D./ B&R, Circle-Ill, Jaipur had made another complaint to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his letter dated 3rd Oct., 1971 relating to over payments made in some cases by the then Executive Engineer Sh. H.P. Kuchhal, the details of which were also given. On this complaint, the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) Rajasthan deputed Shri S. Adaviyappa, Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Raj., Jaipur to conduct a quick and summary examination of all the allegations vide his office order No. H 5(B)/C-B/Ir. 106 dated 15.07.1972.

(7). Four Checking Parties were also deputed by the Chief Engineer for cheking and re-measurement of the various works executed at different places. Party No. 1 was headed by Sh. B.L. Hawa, Asstt. Engineer, PWD (B&R) Planning, Sub-Division-II,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document