RAM KISHORE GUPTA Vs. Y.S. BISHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks quashing of the criminal complaint filed against him by the respondent for his prosecution for offence under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of Customs Act and Section 85(i) and (ii) of the Gold Control Act 1968 by invoking power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the relevant facts are that the Customs Officer apprehended a car driven by the petitioner on 7.11.1986 and recovered Indian currency of the value of Rs. 1.80 lacs which was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was taken into custody. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was also recorded, where after the officers of the DRI again searched the car of the accused and allegedly recovered 50 gold biscuits bearing foreign markings of 24 curate purity of 10 tolas each Along with Rs. 10,000 in one polythene bag. The total value of the gold biscuits was Rs. 13,88,135. A criminal complaint was filed on 7.11.1986 for petitioner's prosecution under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85(1)(ii) of the Gold Control Act in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Prior to that requisite permission was obtained from Collector of Customs for the prosecution of the petitioner. Other two accused, however, could not be apprehended. Petitioner was released on bail on 2.1.1987. 12 witnesses were cited by the prosecution but during the pre -charge evidence during the past 15 years only two of them were examined. The petitioner has contended that the prosecution is vitiated as out of 49 dates fixed for hearing in the case on nine occasions the Presiding Officer was on leave, on three occasions the petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance and on the remaining 37 occasions the prosecution sought for adjournment to produce the pre -charge evidence. The petitioner, as such, has been denied speedy trial violating fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner on 7.12.2000 filed an application for closing of the pre -charge evidence and his discharge on the ground of delay and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ACMM has closed the evidence but has not discharged him for the reasons of delay on the basis of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments. The petitioner, Therefore, prayed this Court that the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against him and proceeding arising there from may be quashed.

(3.) IN Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr., v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2001 IV AD (SC) 202 the Supreme Court referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. : 1992CriLJ2717 observed: