RAMANAND Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying that the first information report dated 13-7-1979 along with the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1984 State v. Ramanand, pending before the Special Judge, Varanasi, be quashed as against the present applicant.

(2.) The facts, which may be relevant for the purposes of the present petition, are that the petitioner Ramanand, is a clerk in the Sales tax Department. A first information report was lodged on 13-7-1979 by Senior Treasury Officer, Varanasi, alleging that offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, I.P.C. have been committed by the accused. The assertion was that a large number of sales tax refund vouchers have been forged and payments have been obtained in respect of the same by opening fictitious accounts in the names of various firms. It was also asserted that attempt was also made to get other refund vouchers passed from the Treasury officer but the forgery was detected in time and the attempt could not succeed. An investigation was made on the allegations made in the first information report by the Inspector, C.I.D. (Economic Offences Cell), and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Varanasi on 23-3-1984. It appears that during the investigation the present petitioner was arrested on 28-10-1980 but was released on bail on 8-1-1981. In the charge sheet submitted on 23-3-1984 four persons, including the present applicant, were named as accused. It was alleged that the accused persons have in pursuance of the conspiracy between them withdrawn amounts totalling Rs. 3,15,573.00 relating to 22 forged refund vouchers. It was further mentioned that three more forged refund vouchers were prepared and attempt was made to withdraw the amount totalling Rs. 85,000.00 under these vouchers. It was asserted that these accused persons have committed offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 511, 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sanction by Assistant Commissioner, Sales tax was obtained for prosecuting the accused persons for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial started in the year 1984 after the filing of the charge-sheet. During the trial one of the accused persons, namely, Vijai Shanker Joshi alias Dau Dayal Joshi, turned approver. It also appears from the material on record that the State Government appointed Sri J. P. Mehta, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor. It also appears that at one stage in June 1987 Sri J. P. Mehta moved application before the Court concerned mentioning that he was unable to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution as his fee has not been paid by the State so far. However, later on, the D.G.C. (Cr.), Varanasi, moved application before the Court mentioning that now Sri J. P. Mehta has agreed to appear in the Court but as he has met with an accident he was unable to attend the Court. It has been asserted on behalf of the State of U. P. in this case that Sri J. P. Mehta remained confined to the hospital for several months and ultimately he died. Later on another Special counsel was appointed to conduct the case. The record also shows that in the year 1984 itself the present petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed a writ petition challenging the order of suspension passed against him. The Supreme Court directed the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner within one month of the date of order dated 26-3-1985. It further directed that the Criminal Trial No. 3 of 1984 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Varanasi, be expedited and shall be disposed of within six months from the date of the order. The matter, however, remained pending before the Special Judge and out of sixty-four witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet only fifteen could be examined by the time the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court in December, 1987. Further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed by order dated 26-2-1988 in the present petition. With the result that the proceedings in the trial continue to be stayed for the last more than 3 1/2 years during the pendency of the present petition.

(3.) The contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer for quashing the proceedings is two fold. The first assertion is that there has been undue delay in the disposal of the trial even though a direction was issued by the Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of the same and for this reason the trial as against the present applicant was liable to be quashed. The second assertion is that the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, who has granted sanction for prosecuting the present petitioner, who is a public servant, had no authority to do so as he was not competent to remove the petitioner from his office. It is contended that the sanction was invalid and for this reason the proceedings in this case were liable to be quashed.