LAWS(CAL)-2007-6-4

ALOKE KUMAR KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On June 07, 2007
ALOKE KUMAR KUNDU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows : This revsional application has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding being Special Case No. 2 of 1997 arising out of Haldibari P. S. Case No. 106/94 dated 1.10. 94 under Sections 408/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the I. P. C.) now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Cooch Behar.

(2.) Mr. Subir Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered at Haldibari P. S. on 1. 10. 94 and the charge sheet was submitted on 14. 5. 97. On the basis of such charge sheet the Special Case No. 2 of 1997 is now pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge at Cooch Behar. Nearly 13 years have passed since the FIR was registered there was no step in the trial and not a single witness has yet been examined. The FIR was lodged by the Chairman of the Haldibari Municipality, and subsequently, the de facto complainant submitted a prayer before the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar for withdrawing the case by the prosecution. In the FIR itself towards end it was mentioned that the accused petitioner deposited the alleged defalcated amount within two days from the incident.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee further submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines right to speedy trial. Pendency of the case for nearly 13 years in a matter where the alleged defalcated amount was deposited within two days of the alleged incident violates the scope of Article 21 and continuation of the criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that though the de facto complainant submitted a prayer before the District Magistrate for withdrawing from prosecution, there was no step by the State Administration to withdraw from prosecution. In this case, the accused was denied his right and Article 21 of the Constitution was violated. The criminal proceeding accordingly should be quashed. In support of his contention Mr. Banerjee cited the decisions in Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 2006 Cr LJ 4765, Sri Subhas Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal reported in (2006)2 Cal LJ 158, Animesh Chandra Sengupta v. The State of West Bengal reported in 2004 C Cr LR (Cal) 502 Pradlp Mitra v. The State of West Bengal reported in 2003 C Cr LR (Cal) 721, Aswini Kumar Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal reported in (2002)3 Ca\ HN 670 and Subir Kumar Basu v. State reported in (2006)2 Cal HN 326.