DOABA INDUSTRIAL & TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BBSR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application, the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. RC 52(S)/94 registered by Opposite Party No.1-CBI, along with all consequential actions/proceedings arising therefrom, including Charge-Sheet No.4 dtd. 31/3/1995 and the ongoing criminal trial/proceedings against Petitioner No.1 in S.P.E. No.32 of 1994 pending before the court of the Special Judge, C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar.

(2.) The background facts, as briefly stated, are that Petitioner No.1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, was implicated in connection with the aforesaid FIR and Charge-Sheet No.4 dtd. 31/3/1995 on the allegation that, while functioning as the Clearing and Forwarding Agent of M/s. National Aluminium Company (hereinafter "NALCO"), a public sector undertaking, it had been entrusted with handling export consignments at Paradip Port pursuant to a tender for the period from 20/6/1991 to 19/6/1993. Under the terms of the tender dtd. 20/6/1991, the obligations of Petitioner No.1 included, inter alia, unloading NALCO's export material at Paradip Port, stacking the same in the open yard allotted to NALCO by Paradip Port Trust Authority, supervising stuffing of the material into containers by the Port authorities, taking necessary precautions for the safety of the material prior to stuffing, lodging police reports and filing claims in the event of theft, liaising with concerned authorities, and maintaining accounts of material received, stuffed, and lying at the port. NALCO was entitled to recover any loss caused to the material due to negligence of Petitioner No.1. Separately, NALCO had engaged M/s. Marin Surveyors & Consultancy Ltd. ("MARCONS") to supervise export activities at Paradip Port, including stock-taking of incoming and outgoing material and forwarding daily stock statements to NALCO. The aluminium ingots received from NALCO's Angul factory were stored in open yards/sheds under the custody of Paradip Port Trust Authority and guarded by CISF personnel.

(3.) Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners, relying upon a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, contends that the inordinate delay of more than three decades in the conduct of the present prosecution has caused grave and irremediable prejudice to the Petitioners. It is urged that several defence witnesses have either expired or become untraceable, and that the fading of memories and loss of material evidence over such a prolonged period would render any further continuation of the trial inherently unfair. Learned counsel submits that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and the extraordinary delay in the instant case strikes at the very root of a fair criminal process, warranting interference by this Court. Placing reliance on the decisions in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1978 SC 579; Sheela Barse vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701, among other decisions, it is submitted that where delay in prosecution is so oppressive as to defeat justice, the only appropriate relief is to bring the proceedings to an end. It is accordingly urged that the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed.