MULCHAND AGARWALLA Vs. K C KANUNGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of law of the first impression raised in this proceedings is : whether a direction issued by the High Court upon a subordinate Court to dispose of a case within a specified period is mandatory or directory ;and whether failure/neglect to comply therewith makes the subsequent proceedings a nullity. The aforesaid question arises in the following facts and circumstances:

(2.) The petitioner-accused Mulchand Agarwalla (hereinafter referred to as accused) has been prosecuted, along with others, for having allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy with each other, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy cheating the Railway Department by despatching eight wagons of steel plates and steel plate cuttings from Chittaranjan against bogus R.R. and Forwarding Notes between the period from 23.9.69 to 15.10.70 in the names of different firms, alleged to be bogus ones, and thereby committing offences punishable under sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947, for which he is facing trial before the learned Special Judge (Additional District Judge) at Asansol in Special Case No. 12 of 1978.

(3.) In view of the delay in the trial of the relevant case oft of the accused, Sewn Singh, had previously filed a Revisional Application before this Court, being Criminal Revision No. 1882 of 1990, for quashing of the relevant proceedings for alleged infringement of his right to speedy trial. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, instead of quashing the relevant proceedings, had disposed of the said Revisional Application by judgment and order dated 20th December, 1991 directing the case record to be sent down to the court below with the specific direction upon the learned Special Judge to fix a firm date for framing of charge within one month from the date of receipt of the case record and dispose of the case within six months from the date of framing of charge" in terms thereof for the reasons recorded therein.