SHAKTI PADA CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed under section 482 of the Cr. PC. The case of the petitioners was that the petitioner No. 1 was the Ex-Secretary of Radharani Girls' High School, Pandua within the District of Hooghly and the petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No^. 3 were the Headmistress and clerk of the said school. One petition was filed by Shri Kalipada Debnath of Pandua before the learned SDJM, Hooghly, alleging therein that the petitioners/accused persons made criminal conspiracy among themselves and defalcated and committed breach of trust in respect of the money of the said school. The de facto complainant has claimed himself to be an interested person for the well being of the school, being the guardian of a student. It was alleged in the said petition that in the Audit Report of the said school it was shown that there were some financial irregularities committed by the accused persons. Said petition was sent to the O.C., Pandua P.S. by the SDJM, Hooghly directing him to investigate the case as per provisions of section 156(3) Cr. PC. On the basis of the said information, a specific case was started against the present petitioners. The case was investigated and after investigation chargesheet under sections 406/408/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. The case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class for disposal by the learned SDJM, vide his order dated 11.09.1986. Charge under sections 406/408/477/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused persons on 03.11.1987. Since then not a single witness was examined and the trial was unnecessarily delayed causing huge harassment to the petitioners. Prosecution is wholly responsible for this inordinate delay as in almost on all the dates the prosecution took adjournments. The petitioners have filed the present revisional application praying for quashing of the proceeding as their fundamental right as provided in the Constitution of India for their right to get speedy trial has been violated due to the attitude of the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed with the case any further, as during these long years it remained callous in its attitude and did not take any positive step whatsoever for the conclusion of the trial. Due to all these reasons, the petitioners have prayed that it is a fit case where the entire proceeding pending before the learned Court below should be quashed. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioners cited decision reported in AIR 1994 SC at page 1229, Santosh De vs. Archana Guha & Ors. It has been decided in the said case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the prosecution is pending for the last 14 years and not a single witness was examined and where the delay could not be attributed to the accused persons then it would be proper for a Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It has further been held in this decision that the right to get speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and the said right cannot be curtailed unnecessarily due to the indifferent attitude of the prosecution. So the decision as cited above, clearly shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the opinion that where it has been established that a criminal proceeding is pending for a long long time due to the laches on the part of the prosecution and where there is no fault on the part of the accused persons in delaying the said proceeding, then in that event the said proceeding is liable to be quashed. Let us now consider the present case in the light of the observations as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have filed certified copy of orders of the learned Court below. It appears from the said certified copies that the case was instituted in the year 1981 and the chargesheet was submitted on 29.04.1986. The inordinate delay in filing the chargesheet, as it appears from the copy of the orders of the learned Court below, is mainly the failure on the part of the I.O. to obtain the specimen handwriting of the accused persons. Be that as it may, I have already pointed out that in this case C.S. was submitted on 29.04.1986. The record shows that charge was framed against the accused persons on 03.11.1987. Since then, till the filing of this revisional application in the year 1994, there was no progress in the said criminal case. Not a single witness could be examined. It appears, from the orders that the defence prayed for supply of the relevant copies, which the defence is entitled as per law. It further appears that as the documents were voluminous in nature, so the defence agreed to inspect the same so that they can effectively contest the criminal case. But the record shows that since the framing of the charge, till 1994, the prosecution could not produce those relevant documents. There is no explanation whatsoever. The order sheets further revealed that the learned Court below also granted time to the prosecution mechanically without applying mind. In this way the accused persons were allowed to suffer the agony of a criminal proceeding for these long years. The prosecution cannot compel an accused to suffer in this way as per its whims. Prosecution is also a party before the Court, like that of the accused persons. It is the duty of the Court to see that the accused persons are not unnecessarily harassed due to the attitude of the prosecution. But I am compelled to say that in this case the learned Court also did not take any step for the early disposal of the case and thereby allowed the prosecution to delay the disposal of the case. If we look into the order sheet then it will appear that the entire responsibility of delaying the disposal of the case lies with the prosecution. The learned Advocate for the State argued that in this case prosecution may be given another opportunity for producing the relevant papers and time limit may be fixed for disposal of the case. But I have already pointed out that the prosecution has failed to produce the relevant document in question during these long years and as such I think that no purpose will be served in giving fresh opportunity to the prosecution, particularly at the cost of the accused persons. As such, I am of the view that in this case, as the long delay took place due to the laches on the part of the prosecution, so it is a fit case where this Court should intervene into the matter and the criminal proceeding should be quashed.

(2.) That apart, in this case, it appears that the case was started on the basis of a complaint filed by one person who is alleged to be a guardian of a student of the school. The allegation made therein is that of defalcation and conspiracy against the interest of the school. So it appears peculiar to me as to how this de facto complainant could be allowed to file such a complaint. The de facto complainant has practically got no locus standi to file the petition of complaint against the accused persons and I fail to understand as to how the learned Magistrate could send the said complaint to the police station for investigation. The appropriate person would have been the Administrator or any other competent authority of the school in question. But no one who actually represents the interest of the school has come forward to file the petition of complaint. In absence of that, I am also of opinion that the learned Court below was not at all justified in allowing the criminal case to be started against the petitioners on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by one alleged guardian of a student of the school. On this ground also the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Therefore, from my above discussion, I. am of opinion that further continuance of the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly will be an abuse of the process of the Court and if it is permitted to continue then in that event it will certainly cause failure of justice. As such, I am of opinion, that it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.