HARPAL DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings under Section 409, I. P. C. in Case No. 604 of 1987 pending in court of the 1st Additional Musif Magistrate, Sitapur.

(2.) THE petitioner Harpal Dutt Sharma was prosecuted under Section 409, I. P, C. by the police of P. S. Sidhauli, District Sitapur. It is alleged that the petitioner was In charge of Seed Store Sidhauli from 1966 to 1970 and he did not hand over the fertilizer worth Rs. 1,88,273-93 at the time of handling over charge and, therefore, the petitioner embezzled the said fertilizer. A first in formation report was lodged at P. S. Sidhauli on 27-11-1970 at 18. 30 hours under Section 409, I. P. C. THE case was investigated but the investigation took about five years and finally charge-sheet submitted to court in 1975 but the said charge-sheet was received in court "on 26-7-1976. A copy of the said charge-sheet was handed over to the accused on 9-3-1977. It appears that copies of all the papers were not supplied and, therefore, the court had directed the prosecu tion to supply all the papers to the accused. After about five months to said copies were supplied to the petitioner on 27-8-1977. THEreafter charges were framed and evidence of one witness Nepal Singh was recorded. In the meantime the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the case is tribal by Sessions, therefore, he committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. THE Sessions Judge after receipt of the case came to the conclusion that the case is tribal by the Magis trate and, therefore, the case was again transferred to the court of the Magistrate. THE Magistrate received back the file of this case on 11-3-1980 and thereafter again the case proceeded in the court of the Magistrate. THE witnesses were again summoned on 11-4-1980 but in view of the fact that several dates had been fixed the evidence of only one witness, namely, Nepal Singh could be completed. It may be mentioned here that evidence of Nepal Singh started before the Magistrate in 1978 but finally it concluded in 1985. In the charge-sheet 16 witnesses were mentioned but up to now only one witness was examined. THEn learned Magistrate on 24-4-1981 passed a specific order granting last opportunity to the prosecution for evidence, but even then no evidence was produced; above-mentioned facts are not disputed by the opposite parties.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit it was pointed out that the witnesses belong to the Agricultural Department and their places of posting are being traced. The petitioner was Seed IN charge, in Government service and was suspended from service in 1971. Since then the petitioner is out of job. The petitioner finally retired from service in 1976. The petitioner is running from Meerut to Sitapur on each and every date of trial. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner is guilty of delay. On the other hand, from the perusal of order sheet it is clear that the petitioner took only 2 or 3 adjournments during this period. On the other hand, the case was adjourned from 14-4-1980 continuously either on the request of the Public Prosecutor or on the ground that the witnesses did not turn up. No doubt on some of the dates the case was adjourned as Presiding Officer was on leave, but the fact remains that mostly the case was adjourned on the request of the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the witnesses did not turn up on the said date. However, the fact remains that the case is lingering on from 1970 and even after about twenty years there is no sign of conclusion of the trial. The progress of the trial is that out of lo witnesses only one witness was examined during this period. Even in the counter-affidavit nothing has been said about this delay and there is general allegation that the prosecution alone is not responsible for this delay. It is settled now that the accused is entitled to get benefit of speedy trial and this right of the accused is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of INdia. The inordinate delay in trial amounts to infringement of right of the accused guaran teed under the Constitution of INdia. The effect of infringement is violation of the right guaranteed under the Constitution of INdia and, therefore, proceedings pending in the court below are liable, to be quashed. IN the instant case as pointed out above, the prosecuting agency is itself responsible for the inordinate delay and there is nothing on record to show that delay is either the handiwork of the accused or was occasioned by some special or exceptional circumstances.