NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The gravamen of grievance of the petitioners in this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of their social reputation, deprivation of respectable livelihood because of order of suspension passed against the petitioner No. 1 during which he was getting a meagre subsistence allowance and has reached the age of superannuation without being considered for promotion, extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and strain, and denial of speedy trial that has impaired their Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The asseverations pertaining to long delay in trial have been made on the constitutional backdrop leading to the prayer for quashment of the proceedings of Special Case No. 4 of 1993 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay.

(2.) Before we proceed to state the factual score, it is necessary to mention that this is not the first time that the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Be it noted, in the said judgment, while quashing the proceedings against the two ladies, this Court referred to the decision in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1998 7 SCC 507 and observed that the trial was not likely to end within one or two years, even if the special court would strictly adhere to the directions issued by this Court in Rajdeo Sharma's case.