C E S VARAMANI DAVID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed under Sec. 482, Crl. P. C, to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused in c. C. No. 258ofl982and C. C. No. 482 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate no. 1, Madurai. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these petitions can be stated as follows: The petitioners are the employees of the Madurai Municipal corporation between 1975 and 1978. The total strength of the Staff in the stationery Department are a Manager, a Head Clerk, 5 Junior Assistants and one attender. On 2. 7. 1979 the Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, had issued an order of suspension against all the staff working in the Stationery department, Numbering about 8, on the ground of detection of malpractice in the issue of papers to the printers for printing purpose and helped the printers numbering 6, to claim bill amount in excess and cheat the Corporation and also in the issue of papers to other departments by making false entries, and thereby caused loss to the Corporation on account of excess billing for ruling, stitching, binding etc. , from 1. 4. 1978 to 21. 5. 1979 to the tune of Rs. 60,000. After suspension, the Commissioner did not hold enquiry and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to give their explanation. No departmental proceedings were instituted against any of the said staff till this dale. The first information report was filed on 22. 2. 1980 in Crime No. 7 of 1980 against 18 persons including 6 primers. On the basis of the first information report in crime No. 7 of 1980, two cases in C. C. No. 258 of 1982 and C. C. No. 482 of 1983 were filed. One Duraisami, Manager, has made representation to the Government against the unlawful suspension and obtained an order of reinstatement. The rest of the entire 11 staff have filed writ petitions questioning the validity of the suspension order and the High Court quashed the order of suspension made against them. After the filing of the charge-sheet, they were again suspended. The charge-sheet, according to the respondent, was filed in C. C. No. 258 of 1982 on 4. 8. 1982 and in C. C. No. 482 of 1983 on 11. 4. 1983 implicating all the staff as well as printers for the offences punishable under Secs. l20-B, 404, 409, 420,466-A and 471 read with Sec. 466, I. P. C.

(2.) THESE petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings on various grounds. But, at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument on the only ground, namely, there is inordinate and inexplainable delay of 3 years in filing the charge-sheet and thereafter there is a delay of 7 years in completing the examination of P. W. 1. The said delay is not on account of the accused or due to unavoidable circumstances. It is stated that the accused were made to appear in court for three years on 37 adjournments from the date of filing of the first information report to the date of filing of the charge sheet on 11. 4. 1983. 15 months thereafter, after 29 adjournments, summons were issued to P. W. 1 on 29. 9. 1984. P. W. 1 did not appear for 8 adjournments for nearly 6 months and later he was examined by chief on 25. 3. 1985. Thereafter, for 22 adjournments (for nine months) he did not appear. He appeared only on 6. 2. 1986 after nine months. After 6. 2. 1986, for one year and 3months, that is, for 26 adjournments, he did not appear, again he appeared only on 19. 5. 1987. Subsequently he did not appear for four adjournments and again appeared on 24. 7. 1987 and that was his last appearance in court and gave evidence in chief. Thereafter for four years, that is for 36 adjournments, though the case was posted for his appearance, he did not appear. THESE petitions were filed in March, 1991. One month later, p. W. 1 died on 22. 5. 1991. It is contended that though the petitioners have repeatedly filed petitions urging issuance of warrant to P. W. 1, they were dismissed, on account of the reason that the court has shown undue importance and respect for the witness. It was urged that the trial court has been granting adjournments on mere representation on the side of the prosecution and sometimes even without representation. Though the trial was protracted for nearly 9 years, the prosecution has not even completed the evidence of P. W. 1. From the date of filing of the charge-sheet on 4. 8. 1982, the court has to adjourn the case for 55 times and P. W. 1 appeared in court on 25. 3. 1985. Subsequently, out of the total 106 adjournments taken for his appearance for about 7years, he appeared only on 9 days. Subsequently from 1987 to 1991, for four years consecutively, he did not appear. It was further contended that the charges related to the period 1975 to 1978 and it was in respect of the entries in the books,signatures, calculations made in the indent for supply, etc. Among the accused, four of them including one printer (first accused) died, 7 accused retired, 4 accused alone are eligible to remain in service. Even the defence as well as prosecution witnesses have already retired from service and they are not available. The memories of the accused with regard to the receipt and supply, method of calculation adopted and signatures, etc. faded away. It is impossible for the petitioners to remember the identity of the forms for which supply was made and witnesses whom they could summon to support their case. Even if they could summon their presence, it would be a doubtful proposition whether they would be in position to remember what happened more than 12 years back and help them in their defence. It is further submitted that the petitioners may not be in a position to effectively cross-examine the witnesses to be examined on the side of the department. It is vehemently urged that in view of the delay, the witnesses, whether for the prosecution or for the accused, could speak so late in the day, not to what they saw or heard but only to what they should persuade themselves to believe that they saw or heard. This would be a total travesty of justice. Further, the petitioners suffered not only monetary loss but also mental agony on account of thestigma, false scandal and false charges levelled against them and continued the same for the last 12 years unreasonably. According to them, the criminal prosecution, instead of departmental enquiry, is purely motivated one. The inordinate delay in prosecution rendered much hardship to their service as they continued to be under suspension for the last 12 years resulting in great mental agony and financial distress. The petitioners and their family members have virtually become destitutes on account of the callous and irresponsible attitude of the complainant for the last 12 years. Lastly it was submitted that once the constitutional guarantee to a speedy trial and the right to the fair, just and reasonable procedure has been violated, the accused are- entitled to an unconditional release. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel drew the attention of this court to various decisions of the Apex Court and the high Courts including our High Court.

(3.) IN the result, the petitioners are allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 258 of 1982 and CC. No. 4s2 of 1983 on the file of the judicial Magistrate No. 1, Madurai are hereby quashed. .