DHRUV KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Criminal Case No. 2003/06, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, on the allegation of violation of petitioner's fundamental right to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The factual premises and circumstances on which the petitioner has approached this Court to invoke power under Section 482 of the Code, as gleaned from the petition and documents are that during the period when the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill in the Public Works Department (in short "PWD") at Bilaspur, it was alleged that in the year 1993, PWD ordered for supply of 1339.6 M.T. of bitumen with Indian Oil Corporation, Terminal Vishakhapattnam. The supplies are alleged to have been made between the period from 1993 to 1996. In the year 1997, Executive Engineer, after receiving certain complaint, conducted a raid and upon inquiry, it was discovered that only 681.11 M.T. was received in the stores and without there being actual supply of remaining 658.43 M.T. of bitumen, payment for the entire supply was made to the Indian Oil Corporation by the PWD. FIR was, therefore, registered under Crime No. 36/97 by State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau. Bhopal alleging commission of offences under Sections 468, 471, 409, 120B and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner and other accused. The investigation continued for almost 9 years until a charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate on 12-10-2006. The summary of charges as contained in the charge sheet has been placed on record as Annexure A-2. On 23-7-2010, charges under Sections 407, 120B, 420 and 471 of the IPC were framed against the petitioner and other accused and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereafter, fixed the case for evidence of the prosecution on days subsequent thereto.

(2.) The petitioner has now filed this petition seeking termination of criminal proceedings against him on the sole ground of delay in trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that in the matter of the allegation leading to registration of FIR on 7-7-1997, under Crime No. 36/97, the investigating agency prolonged investigation for almost 9 years when charge sheet was filed in the year 2006. He submits that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 2325/09 seeking appropriate direction for early conclusion of the criminal case, which was disposed of vide order dated 5-5-2009, directing the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In spite of direction issued by this Court, the matter is being adjourned on one or the other pretext, without being any fault on the pan of the petitioner and the petitioner is not responsible for delay which is being caused in conclusion of trial against him for alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for the past 14 years since the date of lodging of FIR and the snail's pace at which the trial is going on, wherein, prosecution has cited 62 Witnesses, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial, notwithstanding categoric direction of the Court. It is then urged that be-cause of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner since 1997, the petitioner, apart from facing agony of being branded as an accused, lost promotional avenues in service and even after his retirement on 30th June 2009, retrial benefits like gratuity, leave encashment etc. have not been finalized and the family pension has also been confined only to the extent of 50%. The petitioner and his family is facing serious financial crunch. The substance of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that unduly long delay in conclusion of the criminal case against the petitioner has utterly violated petitioner's fundamental right to speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in these extraordinary situation and circumstances of delay of almost 11/2 decades, the criminal proceedings are liable to be terminated and petitioner set free from all the charges. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak and another, 1992 1 SCC 225, Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2001 AIR(SC) 2989P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 AIR(SC) 1856, Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 3077and Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2009 AIR(SC) 1822.