SAIT MOHAMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.200 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Pollachi, and to quash the same.

(2.) THE first information report against the accused was filed on 22.7.1982. After investigation, a final report under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Investigation Officer to the effect that offences under Sec. 4(1)(a) and Sec.4(1)(g) read with Sec.11 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act appeared to have been committed by the accused. Upon perusal of that report and the documents appended therewith, the Magistrate framed charges accordingly on 12.10.1983. THEreafter, the matter has been adjourned 101 times without any progress in the matter. Aggrieved by such a course, the accused has filed this petition on 1.8.1988 praying to quash the proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner placed before me in support of his contention two decisions, viz. the decision of this Court in Kothanda Pillai v. State, 1982 L.W. (Crl.) 112 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh in G.Balchand Verma v. The State of AP., (1986)1 Crimes 175. In the second decision, there is also a reference to two other decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1360:1979 L.W. (Crl.) 29 (S.N.) and Kadra Pahadiya v.State of Bihar, (1982)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 48 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1982 S.C.1167. In both the cases, the Supreme Court held that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Art.21 of the Constitution and that the accused, who is entitled to such a right, was entitled to approach the Courts for the enforcement of the same.