AKHTAR ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the trial proceedings arose out of crimeNo. 1742 of 1973, of P.S. Kotwali, Bareilly. In this case on 8-4-1994 I had granted the learned Government Advocate three weeks to tile counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet although more than 8 months have expired. In the circumstances I presume the allegations in the petition to be correct and I am disposing of this application finally.

(2.) The applicant was a Revenue Inspector in Municipal Board, Bareilly since 1956 and he has put in 37 years of service. On 30-9-1973 a first information report under Section 408/468/420, I.P.C. was lodged against him by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bareilly vide annexure-I to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The applicant is on bail in the said case.

(3.) In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of this application it is alleged that the case was first enquired by the Kotwali police but later on it was entrusted to CBCID Bareilly for investigation and the CBCID, Bareilly submitted 42 charge sheets on 20-8-1976 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in crime No. 1742 of 1973. Following these 42 charge-sheets the trial proceedings started against the applicant. the details of which are given in the charte which is annexure-2 to the affidavit in support of the application. In para 7 of the affidavit in support of the petition it is stated that the applicant has been acquitted in two cases and he is facing trial in the other 40 cases. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit it is stated that from the charge-sheets referred to in annexure-2 it appears that the charges were framed against the applicant in 1978 and 1979 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. Thereafter these cases were transferred from one Court to another causing lot of inconvenience and difficulties to the applicant. A series of adjournments have been granted to the prosecution by different Courts to produce its witnesses. The last witness was produced and examined over a decade ago. The trial proceedings have been unduly delayed by the prosecution for want of evidence. Photo copy of the order-sheets are annexures-3 and 4 to the affidavit. In paragraph 9 it is stated that ultimately the Munsif Magistrate VIII closed the prosecution evidence in certain cases in the year 1988 in the presence of the Special Counsel for CBCID. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it is stated that the Munsiff Magistrate VI closed the evidence in 1989. In paragraph 11 it is stated that although prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the applicant was recorded as far back as in May, 1988 but the trial proceedings have been concluded as yet. The prosecution for one pretext or the other is dragging on the trial proceedings against the applicant. Speedy trial is a fundamental right of the applicant which he has been denied. By order dated 19-8-1992 the Judicial Magistrate III refused to grant any further opportunity vide annexure-5 to the affidavit. The order dated 19-8-1992 states that the prosecution has been granted 100 dates for producing its evidence. This shows the utter callousness and negligence on the pan of the prosecution.