Honble THOMAS, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Two lady octogenarians feel that there is not much time ahead of them to complete a trial which is yet to begin, and counting the number of years which the investigation consumed for finalising the charge-sheet, the trial would not be anything less than a long drawn out one. The two ladies approached the High Court of Bombay, along with their kinsfolk, who too are arrayed in the same case, one of them as the kingpin, to get the criminal case awed down at the threshold of the trial stage, mainly on the ground of long delay in completing the investigation. But the High Court, instead of snipping down the case charge-sheeted, dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that in a similar case the High Court refused to countenance similar contention.

(3). The facts, barely necessary for disposal of these appeals, can be stated thus: Appellant Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal is a Government servant who attained the rank of Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Prohibition and Excise of the Maharashtra Government (he will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant- public servant). Appellant Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal who is now aged 83, and Shanta Subarao Shirali, who is now aged 81, are the mother and mother-in-law of the appellant-public servant, respectively. His wife Anuradha is also an appellant as she too was arrayed as accused.

(4). On the basis of some information received by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB for short) a preliminary enquiry was conducted and on 26.6.1986 and FIR was lodged against the appellant-public servant for the offence u/S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This was immediately followed by raids conducted at the places which the ACB officials believed to be the buildings of the appellant-public servant situated at Mumbai and Nasik. The raids and certain other enquires conducted by them revealed that appellant-public servant had acquired assets worth Rs. 33.44 lacs, in the year 1986, which were far in excess of his known sources of income. The investigation was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the ABC and he submitted the final report to his superior who was the Director of ACB, in July 1990. After the draft final report was approved the ACB approached the Government of Maharashtra on 6.4.1991 for obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant-public servant. The Government accorded sanction on 22.1.1993 and thereupon the charge sheet was laid against all the appellants on 4.3.1993 before the Special Court dealing with offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The offence alleged against the appellant-public servant was under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The offence alleged against the lady appellants was abatement of the main offence pitted against the appellant-public servant.

(5). All the appellants appeared before the Special Judge on 14.1.1994 when process was issued to them. The next posting in the said Court happened to be only after the lapse of one year. On the said day appellants moved some interlocutory applications. After positing the case on different future dates for disposal of such interlocutory applications, the case moved at a slow pace and reached the stage of hearing preliminary arguments for considering whether charge should be framed or not. it was in the aforesaid context that the appellants filed the writ petition before the High Court of Bombay on 15.4.1997 for quashing the criminal proceedings.

(6). The main ground urged in the Writ petition in that there was gross delay of 11 years for filing the charge-sheet and that such delay violates Art. 21 of the Constitution. According to the appellants, such delay had caused unbearable mental trauma, fear psychosis and tension to them as well as to the other members of the family, besides tremendous humiliation and defamation heaped on them. they also said that the abnormal delay had caused colossal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document