ABANI MOHAN BISWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1246/76 arising out of Karimpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 4.7.1976 under sections 147/447/379/324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Krishnagar in Nadia.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the G.R. Case No. 1246 of 1976 arose out of Karimpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 4.7.1976 under sections 147/447/379/324 of the IPC and after completing investigation the police submitted chargesheet in the said case on 10.2.1977. Copies of relevant papers were served to the accused persons on 23.3.1977. For the last 27 years the trial has not been completed. It amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as the said Article guarantees fundamental right of speedy trial. In the meantime some of the accused persons have expired and some have become old and it causes inconvenience to them to attend Krishnagar Court from long distance of Karimpur for so many years. Continuance of the proceeding after so many years is an abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly in view of the guarantee of fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, the present proceeding should be quashed. In support of his contention he cited the decisions in Rajendra Kumar vs. State of M.P., reported in 1989 Cr.LJ 554, Mihir Kumar Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 Cr. LJ 26 and Ranjit Kumar Pal vs. State, reported in 1990 Cr. LJ 643.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the State contended that already 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Only three witnesses are left to be examined and the learned Magistrate tried his best to secure attendance of witnesses and warrant was also issued against doctor witness. Ordersheet reveals that accused persons were irregular in attending Court and the delay, if any, was not for the fault of prosecution but for the fault of accused persons. There cannot be any direction for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The Court may direct the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial within a very short time.