DR. LAILA M. ILIYAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The petition coming on for orders on the application for extension of stay, it is considered on merits.

(2.) The petitioner along with five others was alleged with the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sec. 13(l)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations were, the petitioner being a candidate seeking admission to the year M.B.B.S. Course, had forged certain documents and certificates in conspiracy with the Officers of the Karnataka Board of Medical Education, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 6 and had facilitated her to get a payment seat wrongfully. It is specifically alleged that the application made by the petitioner was dated 29-10-1993 as on which date she is said to have committed the offence in conspiracy with the other accused. The investigation having commenced, it was only after 10 years, namely on 23-4-2004 that the respondent-Police had filed a charge-sheet before the Special Court for Lokayuktha cases, Bengaluru. Thereby the Special Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. The progress of the case has been long-winded. In that, on 5-7-2004, the petitioner for the first time, made her appearance before the Court and sought bail and thereafter on 14-6-2005, charges were framed. On 2-7-2005, it was found by the Court that there were 26 other identical cases and there was a stay granted by this Court and that there were several other revision petitions filed which were also pending. On 3-12-2005, this Court in some cases directed the learned Trial Judge to freshly consider the charges framed. On 1-3-2004, the Trial Judge noted that there were also other matters pending before this Court. Subsequently, on 19-9-2009, summons was issued to the complainant witnesses 1 and 2. On 13-12-2010, the Trial Court after noting that one of the witnesses who was in Udupi was totally bedridden, issued a commission warrant for his examination. The evidence was recorded of nine witnesses and the witness summons were served on 29 witnesses, examining them as P.Ws. 1 to 9. On 19-4-2013, the petitioner had made an application under Sec. 7(2)(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 before the Special Judge for Lokayuktha cases, Bangalore, on the ground that she was a juvenile as on the date of the commission of the offence and sought her case to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board. Subsequently, the case having been transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, it was renumbered as J.C. No. 173 of 2013 and summons was issued to the petitioner in June 2013. In March 2014, the petitioner appeared before the Board through her Counsel. The plea of the Counsel was recorded in Nov. 2014 and on the said date, summons was issued to C.Ws. 1 to 3. Since such date and despite three other hearing dates having lapsed, no witnesses have been present before the said Court.

(3.) The petitioner claims that on the alleged date of the offence, namely on 29-10-1993 when she is said to have made an application at the interview for first year MBBS, she was aged 17 years 4 months and 29 days. On the date of registration of the FIR, namely on 19-2-1994, she was aged 17 years 8 months and 19 days. Until now from the alleged date of offence or from the date of registration of the F.I.R., more than 21 years have lapsed and the case remains pending even until now. There was an inordinate delay of ten years taken for the investigation. It is in this background that the petitioner seeks that the proceedings be quashed, particularly, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case in Jitendra Singh alias Bahboo Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013)11 SCC 193 , wherein it is held that as to what should ensue if a person who was a juvenile as on the date of committing an alleged offence attains adulthood and no longer a juvenile, as to how he is required to be treated to ensure that he is rehabilitated and reformed and in dealing with the said aspect, has held as follows: