Back
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Abdul Qayoom Dar – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K - Respondent
CRMC No.195/2018
Decided on : 17-08-2022
J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) and Section 161 of RPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Illegal gratification – While speedy trial is a fundamental right of every accused but then it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule that delay in holding trial would always result in quashing of criminal proceedings – Considerations which are to be kept in mind by Court(s) are circumstances which are responsible for delay, whether accused is prejudiced in any manner by such delay and nature of offence with which accused is charged – Each case of delay in conclusion of criminal trial has to be seen in light of facts and circumstances peculiar to said case – It cannot be stated that delay in completion of trial has resulted in violation of petitioner’s right to speedy trial in this case since as many as on 20 occasions, matter had to be adjourned for reasons not attributable to prosecution – Petitioner has failed to discharge his burden of showing that due to delay in trial of case, he has suffered any prejudice – Petition dismissed. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has challenged proceedings arising out of FIR No.28/209 for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of RPC registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, that are pending before the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar.
2. It appears that on 06.10.2009, a complaint was lodged by one Shri Wahid Jeelani Dar before Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, stating therein that he had approached the petitioner, who was posted as Patwari Halqa Kralpora at the relevant time, for obtaining a report regarding the land to be mortgaged to J&K Bank Branch Nowgam for the purpose of raising loan. It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.2000/ for furnishing the requisite report but the same was negotiated at an amount of Rs.1000/. On the basis of this complaint, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered and a trap was laid against the petitioner herein. During the trap proceedings, the petitioner was found to have demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1000/ from the complainant and after investigation of the case, offences under Section 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of RPC were found established against the petitioner. After obtaining the requisite sanction for launching prosecution against the petitioner from the competent authority, the challan was laid before the trial court on 12.03.2010. It further appears that after the trial of the case was completed and the defence evidence was over, the petitioner approached this Court through the medium of instant petition challenging the proceedings.
3. It is contended in the petition that investigation in the FIR has been conducted by a non-designate officer as according to Section 3 of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, no police officer below the rank of Dy. SP can investigate the offence under Section 5 of the said Act without the order of a Magistrate, whereas in the instant case, the investigation has been conducted by an officer of the rank of Inspector. On this ground it is urged that the whole investigation is void. It has been further contended that the petitioner belongs to lowest tier of Government service and he has been put to adversities as a result of meritless prosecution.
4. In its response, the investigating agency has reiterated the contents of the charge sheet and it has been submitted that the main case is pending for final arguments before the trial Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the trial court record.
6. So far as the contention of the petitioner that investigation of the case has been conducted by a non-designate police officer is concerned, in this regard it has to be noted that an entrustment order has been issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, vide his No.SSP/VOK-FIR-2919 dated 06.10.2009, whereby investigation of the FIR in question has been entrusted to Inspector B. A. Mir and he has been authorized under Section 3 of the J&K PC Act to arrest the accused whenever and wherever necessary. The entrustment order further provides that the said Inspector will conduct the investigation under the supervision of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SLK).
7. In terms of second proviso to Section 3 of the J&K PC Act, Senior Superintendent of Police is vested with the power to issue an order of aforesaid nature, authorizing a non-designate police officer to investigate an offence under the PC Act. The entrustment order, which is subject matter of instant case, clearly exhibits application of mind on the part of the issuing authority Legality and validity of a similar order has been upheld by this Court in the case of Anis Ahmad Choudhary vs. State of J&K & Ors. (CRMC No.167/2018 c/w CRMC No.168/2018 & CRMC No.169/2018 decided on 04.08.2022). Therefore, con
: While speedy trial is a fundamental right of every accused but then it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule that delay in holding trial would always result in quashing of criminal pro....
The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right, but the delay in holding the trial does not always result in the quashing of criminal proceedings. The court must consider the circumstances responsi....
The right to a speedy trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21, and unreasonable delays, particularly when not caused by the accused, can warrant quashing ongoing criminal proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and inordinate delays in criminal proceedings can lead to quashing of the prosecution.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental and must be upheld, with inordinate delays in prosecution warranting quashing of proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing all stages of criminal proceedings and essential to prevent undue incarceration.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, emphasizing the need for courts to avoid undue delays and not show leniency towards accused in serious crimes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
