Back
1990 Supreme(P&H) 218
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Grewal, J.
Anand Parkash
Versus
State (U.T.Chandigarh)
Criminal Misc. No. 6167 of 1989,6168 of 1989,
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1990
Inordinate delay of over 10 years in investigation and trial, not caused by the accused's default or extraordinary reasons, violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - INORDINATE DELAY IN INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL - VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of an FIR registered in 1979 for alleged offenses under Sections 420/468/470/120-B IPC and Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner, a public servant, was accused of being involved in a conspiracy to cheat and forge quotations for the purchase of weigh-bridges, resulting in financial loss to the Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation in the case had been delayed for over 10 years without any plausible explanation. The investigating agency had failed to present a challan against the petitioner or his co-accused despite the inordinate delay. The court held that the delay violated the petitioner's constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the inordinate delay of over 10 years in investigation and trial violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the arguments advanced by the respondents, including the absence of a bar under Section 467 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of offenses with punishment exceeding three years, constituted a plausible explanation for the delay?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inordinate delay of over 10 years in investigation and trial violated the petitioner's constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the delay was not caused by the petitioner's default or any extraordinary or exceptional reasons. The court also rejected the respondents' arguments, including the absence of a bar under Section 467 Cr.P.C., as insufficient to explain the delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioner.
S.S.Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of the impugned First Information Report No. 344 dated 27.7.1979 under sections 420/468/470/120-B IPC and section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings taken thereunder.
2. In brief, according to the allegations in the impugned First Information Report, quotations for the purchase of 20 weigh-bridges were obtained by Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) from firm M/s Avery India Ltd., firm Bird & Company and firm M/s George Sholter. The quotation at the rate of Rs. 72,000/- to complete 20 weigh-bridges, offered by M/s Bird & Company, being the lowest, was approved by Shri Munshi Ram IAS the then Chairman of the Board. No quotation was actually obtained from Firm M/s George Sholter India Ltd. and it was disclosed that the quotation purported to have been offered by this firm did not bear the signatures of their agent Shri A.K. Rai, rather it was found to be in hand of Shri K. K. Talwar an agent of M/s Bird & Company. The present petitioner who was working as Superintending Engineer (P) of the said Board knew that the said quotation was fictitious. Firm. M/s A-One Sales Company, Sonepat had sent its quotation to the Board which was even lowest, but that quotation was allowed to disappear with dishonest intention, and in this too the present petitioner had a hand. Shri Munshi Ram, Chairman of the Board unauthorisedly arranged to get issued the cheque of advance of Rs. 2.5 lacs in the name of firm M/s Bird & Company instead of a payee account cheque by exercising undue pressure on the subordinates working under him. The same cheque was obtained by Shri J.R. Sharma an agent of firm M/s Bird & Company. The amount of the cheque was received by Shri Onkar Mal Mittal through the account of the firm New Bharat Steel Industries, Hissar in the Central Co-Operative Bank, Hissar. From the preliminary enquiries,. it was established that in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, Shri Munshi Ram aforesaid and the present petitioner, who were the officers of the Board, and also public servants, joined hands with Shri K.K. Talwar and Shri J.R. Sareen agents of the firm M/s Bird & Company and Shri Onkar Mai Mittal, resident of Hissar and worked together with dishonest intention with the object. to commit cheating and forgery and to commit corruption through Government employees, resulting in heavy financial loss to the Board, and illegal pecuniary advantage to the accused which was caused by abusing their position as a public servant. Quotations were forged and used with dishonest intention, and, thereby the Board was cheated and the advance amount was fraudulently paid. Since the offences were committed in Sector 22 Chandigarh, a case was got registered, at Chandigarh.
3. Only the Union Territory of Chandigarh has, cared to file, reply in this case.
4. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
5. Admittedly, the case against the Petitioner and his other co-accused was registered as far back as 27-7-1979. It was not disputed that vide Memo No. 85/24576 dated 13-9-1985, the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, had written to Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, informing the latter that the Union Territory of Chandigarh had decided to withdraw the case from prosecution relating to the impugned FIR as public purpose perhaps would be better served by withdrawing the case from the prosecution. Subsequently, as is apparent from letter (copy annexure N), dated 29-4-1986, Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh, communicated to Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh that the administration was not inclined to withdraw the present case from prosecution, or sending the case as untraced. It is a case in which forged tenders are al
