K ACHUTA RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 47 of 1979 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore, solely on the ground that gross delay in the commencement of the trial constitutes denial of justice and allowing such proceedings to continue after long lapse of years would not only cause gross miscarriage of justice, but also violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial envisaged in Art. 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R. lodged by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Secretary of the Koraput Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jeypore, that petitioner K. Achuta Rao while working as a Junior Accountant during the period from 6-1-1971 to 21-6-1972 and petitioner S.S. Goudo while working as an Assistant Superintendent during the period from 29-4-1970 to 3-4-1972, along with some others misappropriated a huge sum of about Rs. 4 lakhs and on the basis of the said report lodged during Jan., 1979, the police submitted charge-sheet on 3-9-1984 against three accused persons showing other four accused persons as absconders. On 3-9-1984, the learned Magistrate took cognisance against the petitioners under S.408/34, Penal Code, issuing summons against the two petitioners and non-bailable warrants of arrest against other accused persons. In the meantime, the other accused persons also appeared and cognisance has been taken against them. After long lapse of about fifteen months, by order dt. 21st of Jan., 1986, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused persons including the petitioners under S.408, I.P.C. and at this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) Mr. Palit, for the petitioners contends that the alleged misappropriation is of the year 1970-71 and in the meantime more than sixteen years have elapsed. Even from the date of the alleged detection in the year 1979, more than seven years have elapsed and the investigation itself continued for about six years. In this view of the matter, continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an undue harassment of the petitioners who would suffer untold miseries and the petitioners' valuable right of a speedy trial enshrined under the Constitution will be seriously jeopardised and, therefore, this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that since the misappropriation in question relates to an old event and is based on documents, the investigation naturally would take a longer time, but that by itself cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. The rival contentions require a closer scrutiny of the matter.