MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application the accused petitioners pray for the quashing of a criminal proceeding against them pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Third Court, Calcutta. The petitioners were accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof forging three railway receipts as genuine and inducing the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- between 4.8.75 and 19.8.75. It appears that the criminal proceeding against the accused persons was initiated in 1975 and they were produced in custody on 6.1.76. Since then the proceeding has been continuing and after the framing of charge the P.W. 1 has been examined in part. It has been alleged that the examination of the P.W. 1 was started in January 1986 and the same is still incomplete. The sole ground for quashing the proceedings is that there has been inordinate delay in the conduct of the proceedings and that there is no possibility of completing the same in near future. It has been argued that the indefinite prolongation of the matter has caused immense mental strain on the accused persons and that they have been put to serious mental agony on this account. The petitioners have stated that they have been deprived of prompt justice and that the same has affected their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioners Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee submits that the inordinate delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution against the petitioners speaks for itself. He relies on different decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts and argues that in the present circumstances of the case the prosecution against the petitioners should be quashed. As Mr. Mukherjee has relied solely on the point of delay in this revision petition it is necessary to see how far his submission is correct.

(3.) The petitioners have enclosed copies of a good number of order sheets to substantiate their point that the delay caused so far for the prosecution of the case has affected their fundamental right of having a speedy trial. As stated above, four accused persons were produced in custody on 6.1.76. Since then the case was adjourned to 16.1.76, 28.1.76, 8.4.76, 27.7.76, 27.8.76, 20.11.76, 12.2.77, 19.2.77, 21.2.77, 22.2.77, 16.3.77, 17.3.77, 18.5.77. 25.7.77, 27.8.77, 17.11.77, 30.12.77, and 20.3.78 on different grounds for concluding the investigation. On 20.3.78 challan under section 120B/20/471 I.P.C. was submitted against the accused persons. Thereafter the case was transferred from the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Third court. The case was further adjourned to 28.5.78, 14.6.78 and 17.7.78 for the supply of copies of police papers to the accused persons and 14.8.78 was fixed for the consideration of charge. On that date the charge was not framed as the trying Magistrate was transferred. The matter was adjourned to 5.10.75 on which date the trying Magistrate was on leave. At last 18.11.75 was fixed for consideration charge. On 18.11.78 the date of framing of charge was again shifted as two of the accused persons were not physically present and were represented by their lawyers. Thereafter, after one adjournment on 24.12.78 the charges were framed on 19.1.79. Thereafter 19.3.79 was fixed for evidence of the prosecution. The case was further adjourned to 24.5.79 and in the mean time by an order of the High Court further proceedings of the case were stayed. Record was received back from the High Court on 4.2.80. Thereafter several adjournments were taken on different grounds sometimes at the instance of the accused and sometimes on other grounds and at last the accused filed a revision petition before the High Court against an order of the Magistrate rejecting their prayer for discharge. Further proceedings were again stayed and the order of stay was received by the Court on 26.11.82. The record was subsequently received back from the High Court with the direction to complete the trial of the case and dispose of the same upon evidence by final order. Notice was issued thereafter on the accused persons for their appearance. The accused persons having been found absent warrant of arrest was issued on 25.4.85. The accused persons having been brought to Court were again granted bail. Thereafter after several adjournments one witness was heard in part on 17.1.76. The case was then adjourned to 4.4.86 and thereafter to 20.6.86 for further evidence of P.W. 1. Since then adjournments were taken on various dates in majority of the cases all the accused persons not being present together and the result is that P.W. 1 is still to be examined in full.