SUBRATA BRAHMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before ACMM, New Delhi under Section 420 of IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the chargesheet against him was filed way back on 21st December, 1998 and order for framing charge was passed on 5th October, 2004, the examination of the complainant-Neera Malik, who was partly examined on 6 th September and 3rd August, 2006 has not been concluded. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No. 2311 of 2008 for quashing the proceedings against him. Vide order dated 23rd July, 2009, this Court, while disposing of the above-referred Crl.M.C., directed the Trial Court to ensure that the trial was concluded within a period of six months from the date of the order. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial has not been concluded despite the time fixed vide order dated 23rd July, 2009 having expired.

(2.) Since the petitioner claimed that complete documents had not been supplied to him, this Court, while disposing of Crl.M.C.2311 of 2008, directed the petitioner to inspect the Court Record by 25th July, 2009 and give a list of documents, which he had not received, to the concerned PP on 25th July, 2009 itself. Those documents were to be supplied to the petitioner by 29th July, 2009, so that the Trial Court would examine the witness on 30th July, 2009, which was the date already fixed before it.

(3.) A perusal of the order-sheets and documents filed by the petitioner would show that he did not give list of deficient documents to the learned APP on 25th July, 2009. It was on 27th July, 2009 that a letter was sent to the learned APP posted in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi requesting him to ensure availability and organizing of all the documents, as mentioned in the list of documents, as available on the Court File. He specifically referred to documents at serial No.9 and serial No.16 of the list, documents pertaining to taking the specimen signatures of accused persons and the report of FSL dated 27th August, 1996. The case of the petitioner is that this letter to the APP was sent by speed post, as the Naib Court refused to accept the letter. A perusal of the order-sheet dated 30th July, 2009 would show that on that day, the order of this Court dated 23rd July, 2009 was not brought by the petitioner to the notice of the Trial Court. An application dated 30 th July, 2009 was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court on the same day and finds mention in the order-sheet. A copy of the application, which the petitioner has filed as Annexure-D to this petition, shows that even in this application, the petitioner did not inform the Trial Court that this Court had directed conclusion of evidence, within six months from the date of the order passed by it on 23rd July, 2009. In para 2 of the application, the petitioner specifically stated that copy of the order had not been made available to him and he would be producing the same immediately on its being made available. Pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner on 30 th July, 2009, the matter was adjourned to 22 nd August, 2009 for PE/FP. On 22nd August, 2009, the Presiding Officer has gone for training and, therefore, the Link Magistrate adjourned the matter to 4th September, 2009. On 4th September, 2009, the Trial Court was informed that this Court had directed supply of deficient copies to the petitioner before 30 th July, 2009. The Trial Court directed that the documents be supplied on that very day. The counsel, who was appearing for the petitioner, was requested to mark all the documents which he wanted to be supplied, but, he requested that the matter may be taken up at 2.00 pm so that the main counsel, who had inspected the file, may come and see what documents were required. When the matter was again taken up at 2.00 pm, the Court was informed that the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy in this Court and adjournment was sought. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 5 th September, 2009. On 5th September, 2009, the learned counsel for the petitioner was again not present and the proxy counsel, who appeared on his behalf, stated that remand papers, FSL report with documents and copies of bill book were to be supplied to them, which were on record. The counsel was given liberty to flag all those documents so that no further dispute remained on the point of supply of documents. The proxy counsel, however, was unwilling to flag the documents, since he was not sure, which documents were to be supplied and senior counsel was not available. On his request, the matter was adjourned till 2.00 pm. When the matter was again at 2.00 pm, the main counsel was still not available and the proxy counsel again stated that he was not sure about the documents and requested that the matter may be taken up on any Saturday. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 19th September, 2009. On 19th September, 2009, the learned counsel for the petitioner was again not available to assist the Court and the matter was passed over on the request of the petitioner. When the matter was taken up again, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and was heard. Since the learned APP wanted some time to file reply, the matter was again taken up at 2.00 pm. Reply by learned APP was filed at that time and the matter was adjourned to 24th September, 2009 with a direction to call IO. On 24th September, 2009, the petitioner appeared with a proxy counsel. IO was also present on that day and copies of documents were supplied to the accused under his signatures. The matter was then adjourned to 24th October, 2009 on the request of the petitioner. On 24th October, 2009, the complainant-Neera Malik was present in person, but the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 13th November, 2009 by the Link Magistrate. On 13th November, 2009, the Presiding Officer was again on leave and the matter was adjourned to 16th January, 2010 by the Link Magistrate.