SUBHAS CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is aimed at quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 1060/1980 (T. R. Case No.65/1990) arising out of Nakashipara Police Station (in short P. S.) Case No.9 dated 11.4.80 under Sections 420/120B/272 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia.

(2.) Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid Nakashipara P. S. Case No.9 dated 11/4/80 under Sections 420/120B/272 of the I.P.C. was started against this petitioner and others on the basis of written complaint/First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) lodged by one Adhir Ranjan Das, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to District Enforcement Office, Krishnagar Sadar, Nadia. After concluding investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 420/120B/272/511 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons with a prayer to discharge two other accused persons namely, Anil Kumar Singha Roy and Nital Singha Roy. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons including this petitioner on 29.4.91. Since then not a single witness was examined for the prosecution and the case is still pending for trial. Since starting of the case on 11.4.80 upto this date within 25 years not a single witness was examined by the prosecution. In the meantime two of the accused persons have expired and the present accused has now become old, infirm and invalid.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against this petitioner since 1980 amounts to miscarriage of Justice and it violates principles of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution lays down provisions of speedy trial of cases but, pendency of the case for 25 years is an abuse of the process of Court and is a glaring instance of violation of right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner is now suffering from serious illness and pendency of the case for the last 25 years has caused severe humiliation to him and his fame and prestige has been lowered in the eye of his neighbours, colleagues and even his family members. Pendency of the case for so many long years is causing mental agony and harassment to the petitioner. It is still uncertain when the trial would come to an end and the criminal proceeding should be quashed as its continuation would be against spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution and is abuse of process of Court. In support of his contention he cited the decisions namely, Pradip Mitra v. State of West Bengal reported in 2003 C Cr. LR (Cal) 721, Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar reported in 1999 C Cr. LR (SC) 398, Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar reported in 1998 C Cr. LR (SC) 385, P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Kamataka reported in 2002 C Cr. LR (SC) 497 and one unreported decision of this Court in Babul @ Babul Kar v. State of West Bengal in C.R.R. No. 1832 of 2004.