ANIMESH CHANDRA SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 575 of 1996 arising out of Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 37 dated 28.4.86 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Hooghly being Special Court Case No. 2 of 1991.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was posted as Store Keeper-cum-Clerk-cum-Accountant of Imambara Sadar Hospital. On 23.4.86 he informed the Programma Director-cum-Superintendent, District Hospital, Hooghly stating that a sum of Rs.8,000/- was defalcated by someone forging his signature. The petitioner was arrested by police in connection with Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 37 dated 28.4.86 under section 409 of I.P.C. which was started on the basis of complaint lodged by Programme Director-cum-Superintendent, District Hospital, Hooghly alleging that the petitioner encashed Rs.8,000/- through Cheque No. A 41/100073010 of State Bank of India, Chinsurah from current account by putting signature on the back of the cheque. But previously the petitioner informed the de facto complainant about the withdrawal of the money by someone forging his signature and at that time he also informed that counter folio of the cheque was missing from the cheque book which was in custody of petitioner. In the said case chargesheet was submitted on 9.1.91. The petitioner has retired from service on 31.8.92 while he was under suspension.

(3.) He contended that during investigation no specimen signature of the petitioner was obtained by the Investigating Officer (hereinafter called the I. O.) for verification by handwriting expert with the impugned signature appearing on the back page of the cheque. Though the case was started in 1986, the trial has not yet been commenced. Continuation of this criminal proceeding since 1986 amounts to miscarriage of justice and it is against principles of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution lays down provision of speedy disposal of trial but pendency of the case for nearly 17 years is an abuse of the process of law. It is causing mental agony and harassment to the petitioner. Accordingly, the said criminal proceeding should be quashed. In support of his contention he cited two decisions namely 2002 0 CalCriLR 497 (P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka) and 2003 C Cr LR (Cal) 721(Pradip Mitra vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) for consideration of Court.