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.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

The petitioner Rama Chandra Behera has filed this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2017 confirming the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in 2(c) CC Case No.09 of 2013 wherein the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner to dismiss the proceeding as not maintainable and to award compensation in his favour.

2. The main contention raised by Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the criminal proceeding has been initiated in the year 1993 and cognizance of offence was taken on 29.03.1993 and in the meantime twenty six years have passed and the delay in disposal of the criminal case is in no way attributable to the petitioner. He further submitted that even though the Criminal Revision No.33 of 1996 was dismissed by this Court on 15.05.1998 and simultaneously the lower court records were sent back, but till 09.09.2016 no step was taken to dispose of the case. It is further contended that after receipt of the order dated 27.09.2016 of the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur received the case records on 27.09.2016 and till today there is no progress in the trial even though no stay order is operating. It is argued that since the petitioner, who is an aged person, has been deprived of his fundamental right to speedy trial and no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceeding to continue against the petitioner, this Court should quash the proceeding invoking the inherent powers.

3. Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, contended that the delay cannot be a sole factor to quash the criminal proceeding in all the cases and the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and he is facing prosecution under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violating Clauses 9(1) and 14 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy and Restriction of Sale and Movement) Order, 1982 (hereafter ‘1982 Order’) and sufficient materials are available on record against the petitioner. He further submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner has not contributed to the delay in the proceeding and it also appears that the petitioner has waited for so many years to take advantage of the delay in disposal of the case and therefore, it is not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers to quash the criminal proceeding.

4. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that on receipt of a complaint/ prosecution report under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of Clauses 9(1) and 14 of the 1982 Order, 2(c) CC Case No. 09 of 1993 was instituted on 29.03.1993 before the learned Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur as it was then a Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act. On the date of registration of the case, cognizance of the offence was taken. After particulars of the offence were explained to the petitioner, the record was posted for trial. The petitioner filed petitions under sections 227 and 245(2) of Cr.P.C. and those petitions were rejected on 06.10.1994. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Revision No. 640 of 1994. Since this Court did not entertain the revision and dismissed the revision, the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.600 o