T BALASUBRAMANIAM INCOME-TAX OFFICER RETD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-1 to A-4, have been implicated in this case for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b) r/w 420 and 420 IPC and they have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No.11603 of 1987 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8.

(2.) MR.K.Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners, viz., A-1 was working as Income Tax Officer, A-2 was working as Upper Divisional Clerk in Income Tax Office, A-3 was working as Tax Assistant, Company Range -IV and A-4 was also working in the Income Tax Department. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioners have been implicated for the above said offences and the case is pending right from the year 1987 without seeing the light of the day of commencement of trial. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that in view of the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners have been put into great hardship by appearing before the Court for periodical hearings. The learned senior counsel further contended that in view of no progress in this case as not even a single witness so far examined in spite of the lapse of more than two decades, the proceedings would definitely amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. The learned senior counsel would further submit that in view of such inordinate delay and in view of the fact that there is absolutely no progress in the trial, the petitioners' right to speedy trial has been infringed and as such they are entitled to be relieved from the case as the continuation of proceedings would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Law.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioners have been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b) r/w 420 and 420 IPC. The undisputed fact remains that the complaint was registered by the respondent police as early as in the year 1986 and the charge sheet was filed before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate as early as in the year 1987 which was taken on file in C.C.No.11603 of 1987. IT is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that A-7 to A-15 have already pleaded guilty and they have been convicted accordingly immediately after filing the charge sheet. IT is also further brought to the notice of this Court that a revision in P.R.C.No.447 of 1991 was filed by A-1, the first petitioner herein challenging the order of conviction of A-7 to A-15. IT is very much painful to note that the instant case is pending as early as from the year 1987. The undisputed fact remains that as on date there is absolutely no progress whatsoever as even till date not even a single witness has been examined. This Court cannot brush aside yet another disturbing feature that the accused, A-7 to A-15 have been guilty and they have been convicted immediately after filing the charge sheet as early as in the year 1987. There is absolutely no material available on record to show that what had happened from 1987 to 1991. IT is seen as per the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that a revision in R.C.No.447 of 1991 was filed on the file of this Court challenging the conviction of A-7 to A-15 but the fate of that Revision case is also not even known to anyone till date. Over and above, it is pertinent to be noted that there is no indication of any stay of further proceedings in the Crl.R.C.No.447 of 1991. But strangely and curiously there is absolutely no reason seen from the materials available on record for the inordinate delay in conducting the trial.