O ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner stands charged for the offences under secs. 467, 468, 420 and 201, I. P. C. in C. C. No. 8327 of 1988 in the Court of VII metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, on the allegation that he had cheated the Mint Street Branch of Indian Bank to the tune of Rs. 20,000 by, issuing a duplicate pass book to the customer and withdrawing the money from the Savings Bank Account of one Vedavalli Ammal while he was the clerk-in-charge of the S. B. Account of that Branch of the Bank. Proceedings were initiated against him on 5. 5. 1988 on which date he was arrested. THE charge-sheet was filed on 10. 8. 1988 and the trial commenced on 12. 12. 1988. On the hearing dated P. W. 1 T. V. R. Palaninathan was examined. THE next witness p. W. 2 was examined on 3. 1. 1989. THEreafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 91, Crl. P. C. to summon certain document. THE petition was dismissed and he moved this Court in Crl. M. P. Nos. 3920 and 4264 of 1989 to set aside the said order. On 10. 4. 1989 those petitions were allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the directions of this Court to cause production of certain documents required by him, the prosecution has not evinced any interest in complying with the same. So far no reason has been given before the trial court for the non-production of the documents. P. W. 1 was also not produced for cross-examination inspite of repeated directions by learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate. In the meanwhile, P. W. 1 himself was found guilty of misappropriating the funds, of the same branch of Indian Bank to the extent of Rs. 1. 92 crores. THE said T. V. R. Palaninathan is avoiding the court ever since he was suspended. Even though the petitioner and his counsel were regularly appearing in court and praying that the case may be taken up and proceeded with expeditiously, no progress has so far been made after 7. 11. 1989. THE petitioner has so far attended 28 hearings. Though learned Magistrate had given a direction by way of a search warrant authorising the police to search the Mint Street Branch of the Indian Bank and produce the documents, the police has not moved in this direction. THE petitioner is under suspension from June, 1988 and his marriage has been stopped on account of this case. He is the sole bread-winner of his family and he is undergoing untold mental agony and suffering on account of the pendency of this case. Hence, he seeks in this application to call for the records in C. C. No. 8329 of 1988 pending on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Tow n , Madras and quash the proceedings therein.

(2.) WHEREAS learned Public Prosecutor contends that the prosecution is not responsible for the delay in the conduct of the case. Instead, it is the petitioner who is adopting delaying tactics. Even, if there is delay, it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Secs. 420, 467, 468 and 201, I. P. C. under which the petitioner is charged are offences punishable with imprisonment for 7 years, 10 years and 7 years respectively. And there is no period of limitation for the conclusion of the trial.

(3.) IT is the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay in causing the production of witnesses by the prosecution before the trial court as a result of which the case had been adjourned innumerable times causing agony and anguish to the accused/petitioner. Even the direction of the Magistrate to search the premises of the Mint Street Branch of the Indian Bank and produce the documents remains unexecuted. The petitioner is under suspension from June, 1988 and his marriage has been stopped on account of this case.