JAY PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Park-ash son of Shri Bir Bhan has applied under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the record of the lower Court be summoned and the proceedings pending therein be ordered to be quashed.

(2.) This ease i.s one of the very lew instances which bring out a very dark aspect of our jndicial process. A criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 420, Indian Penal Code, was started as far back as 1956. One Roshan Lal Kapur is his coaccused. The facts out of which this criminal prosecution arises are concerned with a limited company called the National Planners Ltd. which has apparently since gone into liquidation and of which one Shri Hardit Singh is functioning as the liquidator. The challan was put into Court more than 9 years ago in April, 1957 and practically no progress has been made in this case during the last more than 9 years. At the present moment, I am informed that the case is pending in the Court of Shri M. L. Grover, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi. Roshan Lal Kapur, co-accused of the petitioner, it appears, has been actively fighting the case and the matter has more "than once gone even to the Supreme Court. Once an order was made by the Supreme Court on 25-8-1958 on a transfer application at tlie instance of Roshan Lal Kapur and again some orders are stated to have been made in November and December, 1962. An application for transfer of the case was also mane by Roshan Lal Kapur in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi on 18-5-1966. in which it was prayed that 7 cases pending against him be transferred for trial to one Court in Kashmere Gate or Tis-Hazari. An interim order of stay of proceedings was also claimed but it appears that on 19 5-1966, the learned Sessions Judge did not grant any stay and he merely issued notice of the applications to the State for 28-5-1966. On that date. the learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to call for the comments of the Presiding Officers of the Courts in which those cases were pending. It was further specifically stated that there was no ground for stay of proceedings at that stage. The hearing was adjourned to 14-6-1966. On 14-6-1966, it is noted by the Reader that the learned Sessions Judge had not yet taken over and that comments of Shri N. L. Kakkar and Shri M. L. Grover, learned Magistrates, had been received. The case was directed to come up on 24-6-1966. On that date the case was adjourned to 6-7-1966 tor further orders. On 6-7-1966, it appears that Roshau Lal submitted supplementary grounds for the transfer of the case. The Public Prosecutor was required, to file his reply on 25-7-1966, on which date the reader to the Court noted that the learned Sessions Judge was on leave. It was, however, added that the petitioner had put in additional grounds of transfer of the case of which a copy was given to Shri Hardit Singh. The case was adjourned to 8-8-1966 for proper orders. On 3-8-66, it was noted that the comments of the learned Magistrates had not been received and a reminder was directed to be sent for furnishing the comments by 19-8-1966. The petition was, however, adjourned to 29-8-1966, on which date the case was adjourned to 6-9-1966 without assigning any reasons. On 6-9-1966. the order said. "As prayed for to come up on 12-9-1966". On 12-9-1966 again, it was adjourned to 14-9-1966 without assigning any reasons and similarly it was again adjourned to 21-9-1966. On 21-9-1966, the case was adjourned to 1-10-1966, but the order does not bear the signatures of the Court. On 1-10-1966, the order said "To come up for orders on 25-10-1966, but this is also not signed by the learned Sessions Judge. Same is the position in regard to the order dated 25-10-1966 which merely said "To come up on 8-11-1966". On 8-11-1968, another application appears to have been presented by Roshan Lal and notice was ordered on that application to the Public Prosecutor for 9-11-1966. On 9-11-1966, it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that Roshan Lal Kapur merely wanted the case against him under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Shri N. K. Garg, S. D. M., New Delhi, to be transferred to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. Regarding other cases, he did not press his application Because in one of such cases, he had already been acquitted and in the other cases the Presiding Officers had been transferred. Regarding the additional grounds submitted by Roshan Lal Kapur, further comments of the learned Magistrate were invited the case was adjourned to 25-11-1966, on which date it was noted by the Reader that the Presiding Officer was on leave and also that the comments had not been received. The Reader also seems to have ordered that the learned Magistrate may be requested to submit his comments before the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned to 6-12-1966, on which date arguments were heard and the case was adjourned on 8-12-1966. On 8-12-1966, application for transfer of the case (State v. Roshan Lal Kapur) under Section 420, Indian Penal Code was allowed and the case transferred from the Court of Shri N. K. Garg to that of Shri A. K. Kapur, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi. The petitioner Roshan Lal was directed to appear in the transferee Court on 14-12-1966.

(3.) It is obvious that the present petitioner against whom criminal proceedings were initiated as far back as 1956 and the challan put into Court as far back as April, 1956 is still awaiting his trial. Shri Safeer hag drawn my attention to a decision of the Circuit Bench at Delhi of the Punjab High Court in Kulwant Rai v. Shyam Sunder, Cri. Misc. 59 of 1965 decided by S. K. Kapur, J. on 20-11-1965 reported as (1966) 2 Delhi LT 7 (SN) at p. 3 of the Short Notes Section.