BRIJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings emanating from the FIR No.250/1990 under Sections 409/420/468/471 Indian Penal Code registered at the Police Station Malviya Nagar and pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on the ground that more than seven years have elapsed since the institution of the case and no charge has yet been framed against him, thus infringing his right to speedy trial, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the year of 1989, the petitioner was employed as JE(E) in the office of the Deputy Director (Horticulture Division No.1), DDA, Seikh Sarai, Delhi. Nine cheques as per details given below issued by the DDA in favour of D.E.S.U., were handed over to the petitioner for being deposited in the office of the D.E.S.U. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_554_DRJ52_2000Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, having tampered with the aforesaid cheques, deposited them in the account of M/s. Din Eur Saj Uppal opened in the Canara Bank, Vivek Vihar and the State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner got these cheques encashed and misappropriated the total sum of Rs. 2,35,522.40. On 15.6.1990, the Deputy Director (Horticulture Division No. 1), DDA lodged the FIR at the Police Station Malviya Nagar regarding the alleged offences. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 409/420/468/471 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. On 26.6.1992, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the petitioner. On 19.8.1992, the petitioner appeared before the trial court, and thereafter, the case underwent several adjournments for supplying copies of the challan papers to the petitioner. On 26.11.1992, deficient copies of the challan papers were supplied to the petitioner and the case was posted for consideration on charges on 21.1.1993. On 21.1.1993, the learned Magistrate discovered that C.F.S.L. report was not filed along with the charge- sheet and, he therefore, summoned the Investigating Officer for 15.3.1993. Thereafter, repeated adjournments were granted for filing the C.F.S.L. report. The order-sheet dated 9.2.1995 reveals that on that day C.F.S.L. report was filed and a copy thereof was also supplied to the petitioner and the case was posted for 24.3.1995. On 24.3.1995 and 15.4.1995, no progress was made in the case. On 7.6.1995, the learned Magistrate discovered that the original C.F.S.L. report and some original documents were not on the record and he, therefore, summoned the Investigating Officer for 8.8.1995. On 8.8.1995, the Investigating Officer did not appear before the Court and the case was adjourned for 11.9.1995. On 11.9.1995, the Investigating Officer remained absent and the notice was issued to the Director C.F.S.L. for 31.10.1995. On 31.10.1995, the Investigating Officer appeared before the trial court and made a statement to the effect that original cheques were lying with the C.F.S.L. and he was, therefore, directed to collect the original documents from the office of the C.F.S.L. and produce them before the Court on 12.12.1995. On 12.12.1995, the Investigating Officer did not appear before the Court and a bailable warrant of Rs. 5000.00 was issued against him for producing the original documents on 1.2.1996. Thereafter, repeated adjournments were granted till 20.7.1998 for producing the original documents but the same could not be produced. However, on 20.7.1998, the learned Magistrate heard arguments on charges and the case was posted for orders on 25.8.1998. From 25.8.1998 to 13.5.1999, several dates were fixed in the case for passing orders on the charges. Surprisingly, on 13.5.1999, instead of passing orders on the charges, the learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 17.7.1999 for re-hearing arguments on charges. The status report of the case shows that on 17.7.1999, the case was adjourned to 15.9.1999 for re-hearing arguments on charges. On 15.9.1999, the case was again adjourned to 1.11.1999 for filing the original C.F.S.L. report. Thus, the order-sheets recorded in the case clearly show that the prosecuting agency did not express an anxiety to have the case disposed of as expeditiously as possible. On the contrary, the prosecuting agency had adopted a lethargic attitude towards the case resulting in inordinate delay in the trial.