STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M S S NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Karnataka has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of the Special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (for short 'the Special Judge') dated 20-7-88 in C.C. No. 9/76 dismissing the application-l.A. 58 filed by the prosecution under Section 309 Cr.P.C. praying for adjournment of the case to the month of October 1988 for trial,

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 are accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in C.C. 9/76. Reference will hereinafter be made to the parties to this petition with reference to the positions they occupy in the Criminal Case in the trial Court.

(3.) The relevant facts which are necessary to be stated for consideration of the prayer of the petitioner-complainant are as under: First respondent-first accused was the Bratich Manager of the Canara Bank Devarajeevanahally Branch, Bangalore, at the relevant time. Respondents 2 and 3 accused Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of a firm called M/s. P.C. Srinivasamurthy & Co , carrying on business in cement and other articles in Bangalore. They were the constituents of the Canara Bank of which the first accused was the Manager at the relevant time. Special Police Establishment, Bangalore (SPE) submitted an FIR to the Special Judge on 19-3-75 against all the three accused for offences under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) and Sections 120-B, 165, 165-A and 420 IPC and ctause(3) of the Karnataka Cement Control Order, 1973 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Order' and 'the Act' respectively). Pursuant to the said FIR, Crime No. R.C. 5/75 was registered by the CBI, Bangalore against the accused. After due investigation of the case, a charge- sheet was filed against all the three accused in the Special Court on 30-10-76 indicting them for the above mentioned offences. More than seven years after filing of the charge-sheet, charges were framed against the accused for the above mentioned offences on 19-12-1983. It was ordered on 16-1-84 that 11-6-84 was fixed for the examination of the prosecution witnesses. 93 witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet. On 31-5-88, the Public Prosecutor representing the CBI/ SPE, Bangalore filed a memo praying for issue of summons to C.Ws. 1 to 3 for the hearing date 6-6-88, C.Ws. 4 to 7 for the hearing date 9 6-88 and C.Ws. 8 to 10 for the hearing date 10-6-88. Accordingly, summons were ordered to the said witnesses on the sama day. On 6-6-88, all the three accused were present. Public Prosecutor returned the witness summons without effecting service on them and prayed for time for evidence on the ground that the witnesses were not available at the addresses mentioned in the summons. On a consideration of the representation made by the Public Prosecutor, the learned Special Judge passed an order wherein he briefly narrated the chequered history of the case and further observed that it is made clear to both sides that the case would not be adjourned on any count on the next dates that would be given and if the respective parties are not ready to go on with the case, suitable order as required would be passed in the matter and posted the case finally on 18-7-88, 19-7-88 and 20-7-88 for prosecution evidence and directed issue of summons as per the memo to be filed by the Public Prosecutor within three days from that date. On 18-7-88, all the accused were present. One formal witness was examined in full as P,W. 1 on that day. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor prayed for time for further evidence. Noting that the case is of the year 1976, the learned Special Judge directed the prosecution to keep all the witnesses present on the scheduled dates and adjourned the case to 19-7-88. On 19-7-88, LA. No. 57 was filed praying for time. It was allowed and the case was adjourned to 20-7-88 for further evidence. On 20-7-88, all the accused were present. It is ori that date that I.A. No. 58 was filed by the prosecution praying for adjournment of the case to October, 1988. Learned Special Judge passed the impugned order on that date by dictation in open Court dismissing LA. No. 58. He further noted in the Order-sheet that the prosecution evidence is closed and the case is posted for statement of the accused on 26-8-88 taking into consideration the submission made by the Public Prosecutor that he intends to prefer a Revision against the order pronounced on I.A. No. 58 and obtain stay order from the High Court. Learned Special Judge has in the impugned order referred to the history of the case in respect of which the charge sheet was filed in 1976. He has also referred to his previous order in which he had made it clear that no adjournment would be granted under any circumstances if the parties are not ready on the adjourned date. He further observed that it is clear from the history of the case that the prosecution was not diligent in going on with the case inspite of sufficient opportunities being given. He has also observed that the submission made by the Public Prosecutor that the delay in the progress of the case was due to the fact that the consent granted for functioning of the CBI/SPE was withdrawn by the State Government in 1978 was without any substance as the consent had been restored to the CBt/SPE in the year 1980 and thereafter eight years had elapsed and he had given sufficient time after taking charge from his predecessor. He finally concluded that there are no substantial grounds to grant any more time to the prosecution for adducing evidence. Consequently, he dismissed I.A. No. 58.