BIMAL KANTI SARKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional case arises out of an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges framed under sections 420/468/471/409 of the I.P.C. in Special Court Case No 3 of 1984 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 11 dated 15-6-1977 pending before the learned Judge, Jalpaiguri Special Court.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as L.D. Clerk in the office of the S.P., Jalpaiguri in 1962. By an order dated 17-6-1977 of the D.I.G. of Police, Jalpaiguri Range he was suspended from service in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 11 dated 15-6-77 under sections 420/468/471/409 of the I.P.C. He was released on bail on 25-8-77. For about four years, Police could not submit any report in final form. So by order dated 22-12-81 the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner and he resumed his duties on 5-4-1984. Kotwali P.S. Case No. 11 dated 15-6-77 was sent to the Special Court, Jalpaiguri as per order of the S.P., Jalpaiguri and was registered as Special Court Case No. 3 of 1984. On 23-11-84, the chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner in that case before the learned Special Court. The learned Judge, Jalpaiguri, Special Court took cognizance and directed issue of summons. The petitioner appeared before the learned Judge, Special Court on 28-1-85 and obtained bail. Copies of some of the papers to which the petitioner was entitled were given to the petitioner but copies of other relevant and important documents were not supplied to the petitioner upto the date of the filing of the Criminal Revisional application on 20th September, 1993. The main contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated in the year 1977 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 27th June, 1984 but the case was still pending after the expiry on 16 years. The exorbitantly long delay is attributable to the negligent conduct of the prosecution side only. There was only a single occasion when adjournment was taken during this span of 16 years at the instance of the petitioner. Article 21 of our Constitution confers the fundamental right to speedy trial and in this case that right has been flagrantly violated. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court for-quashing the proceedings.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. His main contention is that the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed in this case as the case is pending even after the expiry of 16 years from the date of its inception due to the callousness and negligent attitude of the prosecuting authority. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an order for quashing the proceedings.