KAILASH CHAND MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the misc cases were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order as the common question of fact and law are involved.

(2.) BASING on the allegations that the petitioners (Inder Chand Jain is the common petitioner in all the three misc cases and petitioner Kailash Chandra Mohanty is the co -petitioner of Inder Chand Jain in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4725 of 2000) and their co -accused persons committed criminal misconduct and cheating in the matter of purchase of paddy seeds for the Orissa Seeds Corporation and supply thereof, Vigilance Cases were registered, investigated and on conclusion of investigation charge sheets were submitted under Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Sections 420 and 120 -B, IPC. After cognizance those cases were registered as T.R. Case Nos. 71, 72 and 73 of 1983 in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The petitioners, as accused entered appearance and contested the said cases. In the year 1999 they filed petitions requesting the trial Court to drop those proceedings and acquit them on the ground of inordinate delay in disposal of the cases citing the ratio of the case of Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar 7998 Cri.L.J. 4596. Since the said prayer was rejected by the trial Court the petitioners have filed the present petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of the T.R. Cases on the same ground viz. inordinate delay in disposal of the cases.

(3.) MR . D.K. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) on the other hand argued that when law does not prescribe any time limit for trial and disposal of a criminal proceeding, the criminal proceedings involving heinous or antisocial offences cannot be quashed simply on the ground of delay in disposal of the case. He also submitted that inordinate delay by itself does not form good ground for quashing a criminal proceeding as such delay may be due to various factors including dilatory tactics by the accused, stay orders by superior Courts etc. Defending the action of the prosecution in the above noted T.R. Cases, Mr. Mohapatra argued that the prosecution cannot be blamed as it abided by the orders of the Court all along and never acted with malice or negligence. To support his contention learned Standing Counsel relied on the cases of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (supra); CBI v. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerukar and Anr. 2002 Cri. L.J. 4099; Ram Ekbak Missir v. Ram Niswash Pandey @ Sri Niwash Pandey and Ors. 2002 Cri.L.J. 4719.