SAILENPRA NATH MAJUVADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Information report was lodged on 22-5-77 at Jagatdal P. S. against the present petitioner under sections 408/4201. P. C. The allegation against the petitioner was that he as Headmaster of certain school received Examination Fees from Intending private candidates for School Final Examination but neither deposited the fees nor forwarded the applications of the private candidates as a result of which those private candidates could not at for the S. F. Examination in that year. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 408 I. P. C. on 12-5-79. The petitioner however had surrendered before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial 'magistrate at barraokpore on 12-9-77, Charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner under Section 408 P. C 15-1-81 Since then only one witness has been on behalf of the proceccion on 17-8-83 and another in part on that very date. But there after no further took place although in the charge sheet as many as 28 witnesses have been cited. It may be mentioned here that the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 408i. P. C. against the petitioner relates to an amount of Rs. 1,557/- During the investigation certain documents were seized by the police, namely, the applications of the private candidates, daily fees collection book of the school and the school cash book for the relevant period. From the order-sheets of the record of the Court below, it appears that the trial could not proceed beyond the examination of one witness and the examination of another witness only In part because of non-production of the seized documents (Alamate) by the prosecution inspire of repeated directions of the learned Magistrate. It also appears that the learned Magistrates who had dealt with the case at different times had issued repeated directions to different authorities including the officer in charge of Jagatdal P. S. and other officials up to the highest level but the production of the Alamats could not be secured inspite of all such efforts. In his order dated 6-9-82 the learned Magistrate recorded that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had expressed his inability to examine the witnesses in the absence of Alamats which were lying in the Zimba (Custody) of the Investigation Officer. In his order dated 7-2-90 the learned Magistrate recorded that for disposal of the case the seized papers and registers were necessary, but due to the death of the Investigating officer the relevant papers were not coming before the Court inspite of reminders to the special Superintendent, C. I. D. West Bengal. He also directed for informing the I. G. West Bengal for taking necessary action for production of seized papers but nothing, it seems, yielded any result.

(2.) IT may also be noted here, as revealed from the order-sheets of the court below that the petitioner was all through ready for facing the trial. In the circumstances when it appears that down from the time of lodging F. I. R. in 1977 more than 15 years have already elapsed and even from the date of framing charge in January, 1981 more than 11 years have rolled on without making much head-way in the trial and when the Investigating Officer in whose custody the Alamats were taken is dead and when inspite of repeated and in numerable directions of the Court below the prosecution could not make arrangement for the production of Alamats or proceed with the trial, it is evident that the prospect of production of the necessary and important documents by the prosecution is extremely bleak. The petitioner is also under suspension during all these years. This case, to say the least, is an instance of a mockery of the right of the accused to have a speedy trial which has been now recognized by a chain of decisions of the apex court as a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India. No authority is needed to be quoted on the point as the law has been satiated by this time. Even then to refer to a single decision, I may mention of the decision of the Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay vs. R S. Nayak reported in 10992 (1) Crimes, 193 where the law on the point has been exhaustively dealt with. In paragraph 9 of the said decision at page 227 it has been observed thus :-

(3.) HOWEVER, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it appears to me that this is a fit case where the prosecution should be quashed for denial of speedy trial to the petitioner for no fault of his In the circumstances, the revisional application is allowed and the proceeding in the court below is quashed. .