JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay, it is well known is fatal to criminal investigation, as well as to the trial. it gets worst if it can be altriblitecl to lathargic and lackadaisical maner of investigalion. if prolongs the agony of the person under investigation. In such a situation, the alleged accused lives every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress. There is no denying the fact that delayed investigation and delayed institution, of charge sheet thereafter delayed trial are the factors which cause grave prejudice and disadvantage to the accused. It has been abhored by the Apex Court i.n umpteen of cases. The Courts arc protector of right and personal liberty of the citizen. In such circumstances, Court has to step in and if the facts permits, resort to drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings. It is in this backdrop that we have to examine the facts of this case.

(2.) The petitioner joined service in MCD as Laboratory Assistant in 1952 in pay-scale of Rs. 60 per month. He was promoted as Public Analyst in the said Department in 1978. A preliminary enquiry No. 8 of 1978 was registered against the petitioner in Anli Corruption Branch, Delhi Administration, regarding possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Enquiry revealed that he acquired assets consisting of moveable and immoveable property either in his own name or in the name of his family members during the period from 9th December, 1952 to 31st December, 1977. This prelimnary enquiry revealed that petitioner had acquired assets worth Rs. 2,2.5,691.41 paise during the penod from 1-1-68 to 31-12-77 i.e. the check date fixed by he Department. While during this period of check i.e. 1-1-68 to 31-12-77 he could have saved only Rs. 72,151.23 Paise. Thus. the material collected showed that the petitioner was possessed of assets to the tune of Rs. 1,53,540.18 paise disproportionate to his known source of income. On the basis of this material, the case was ordered to be registered and Shri Prithvi Raj Bhatia, Inspector, Anli Corruption Branch was directed to investigate the case. Shri Prithvi Rnj Bhatia after investigation submitted a report taking into consideration all the movenble and immovebale assets, alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner. After verificaion he concluded that dis-proportionate assets of the petitioner were only to the tune of Rs. 2,553.60 paise. On these facts saction for prosecution was acelined by the Director of Prevention of Food Adulteration, on 5th September, 1986(7). After a considerable time, the Department on the basis of the same material got the case re-examined. After reapprising the same material but adding HUF rental income as well as sale proceeds of silver coins belonging to his mother by his mother and gold ornaments of wife by his wife and treating this to be the income of the petitioner, the Authority concluded that the petitioner had amassed wealth weath Rs. 74,444 dis- proportionate to his known, source of income. Second time, sanction was accorded by the Director, PFA on 3rd February, 1982. On receipt of sanction, complaint was filed in Court in 1987.

(3.) Petitioner is aggrieved against the filing of this complaint on various counts and one amongst those is alleged investigation and delayed trial. Till date copies of the documents filed by the State have not been supplied to him even though challan was filed in 1987. Feeling aggrieved because of the non-supply of these documents for number of years, he preferred this petition in August, 1990. There was no stay operating against the respondent still the Trial Court did not direct the respondent to supply the documents. It has taken almost nine years and yet charge has not been framed. A statutory duty is cast upon the State as well as on the Court to ensure that all documents filed with the challan or complaint are supplied to the accused. But in this case in spite of repeated demand made by the petitioner, documents have not been supplied to him. Because of delay on account of repeated investigation and delay of proceedings in Court, the petitioner has suffered. His defence witnesses who were to prove his case namely his mother who sold her silver coins to the tune of Rs. 20,000 which amount has been added as petitioner's income has since died on l1th August, 1989. Similarly his father-in-law Shri Ram Lal who was to prove that he sifted gold ornaments to petitioner's wife which his wife sold and which income has been added as that of the petitioner also died on 5th October. 1982. Other material witnesses who were to prove his case have either died or would not be available in due course of lime.