STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NARAIN SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE service, neither the respondents have filed vakalatnama nor put in appearance.

(2.) THE High Court at Bombay, in its writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, thought it fit to quash the criminal proceedings solely on the ground of lapse of time.

(3.) IN P. Ramachandra Rao2 the Constitution Bench of this Court has been rather specific as regards the period of time during which a criminal proceeding shall have to be completed or closed. In para 32 of the judgment in P. Ramachandra Rao2 this Court observed: (SCC p. 604)