S SATYAVATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec 482 Cr P C. for quashing the prosecution case in C C No. 32 of 1987 on the file of the I Addl. Special Judge for S P E and A C B cases, Hyderabad. The petition is filed on the ground that the abnormal delay in conducting the prosecution tantamounts to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution and the trial is delayed from 1979 to 1990. The prosecution case should be quashed as the petitioner did not have the benefit of a speedy trial.

(2.) Mr. K.G.Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that this is a case where a doctor who is now retired from service is being harassed by continuing the prosecution endlessly fsr the last several years. The petitioner Dr S Satyavathi suffered humiliation and mental torture and agony and she was also kept under suspension for nearly four years without even paying the subsistence allowance, The alleged offences relate to the period 1977-79. The case was registered on 9-12-81. The charge-sheet was filed after a delay of 5 years on 16-5-87, but still the trial is pending. In the meanwhile the petitioner retired on superannuation in February, 1989. In this background following the decision reported in Dr. N V Raghava Reddy Vs, AC B Tirupathi (1) 1991 (1) APLJ 175 the prosecution case should be quashed.

(3.) On behalf of the State Sri N Harisesha Reedy the Standing Counsel who is in charge of the prosecution contends that mere delay in conducting the prosecution case. The decision relied upon by the petitioners advocate is not a correct statement of law. That decision is contrary to the principles laid down in the various Supreme Court decisions. The decisions referrerd to in that judgment as lending support to the view taken by the judge are the decisions which deal with the cases where persons have been in illegal jail custody for years together without trial and in such cases, the prosecutions were cancelled and the accused were directed to be released on the ground that Art, 21 of the Constitution is violated. Those cases arose not under Sec. 482 Cr P C but on the basis of hebeas corpus writ petitions. Those decisions are clearly distinguishable. The subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court clearly show that mere dealy in conducting the prosecution is no ground for quashing the prosecution. Each case will have to be judged on its own merits and the court will nave to examine whether the delay caused is unjustified and whether the delayhas prejudiced the accused in advancing his defence and whether the delay is partly due to the conduct of the accused and whether the prosecution has tried to prosecute the case deligently and properly. Mr. Harisesha Reddy further points out that the principles laid dowm in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P V. Pavithran (2) AIR 1990 SC 1266 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Champalal (3) AIR 1981 SC 1675 are the decisions which would govern this case. Mr. Harisesha Reddy submits that subsequent to the decision in Dr. N V Raghava Reddy Vs. A C B Tirupathi (1) (supra) there are several other cases where on the ground of mere delay In prosecution, prosecution cases were not quashed. He specifically refers to the judgment dated 25th April 1991 in Crl Petition No. 1986 of 1990 in Badiri Narayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh delivered by Justice N D Patnaik.