SAILENDRA TOMATIA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a former Director of NALCO has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceeding in T.R. No.151 of 1999 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar on the ground of delay in disposal of the said case.

(2.) SHRI Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the order sheet attached to the petition submitted that the F.I.R. was received by the Court in February, 1997 and charge -sheet was filed on 07.04.1999. On 8.8.2000, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 239 of the said Code to discharge him. Both the petitions were rejected by order dated 10.10.2001 and after framing of charge the trial commenced in January, 2005. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that though the trial has commenced since January, 2005, only five witnesses have been examined so far and the case being of the year 1997, the prosecution having not taken any step for disposal of the case early, the proceeding should be quashed. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in JT 2002 (4) SC 92. Shri S. K. Padhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the C.B.I., on the other hand, submitted that after framing of charge, the matter was brought before this Court and ultimately before the Supreme Court and in the process more than three years were consumed at the instance of the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that there was no Presiding Officer for a long time as a result of which the trial could not proceed and the prosecution is now ready with all the witnesses so that the trial can be concluded as early as possible. Shri Padhi also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Baidnath Prasad alias Baidyanath Shah and another reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 465.

(3.) IN view of what has been discussed above, it is not the fault of the prosecution alone for delay in disposal of the case. The petitioner also contributed to a considerable extent for delay in disposal of the case. I, therefore, decline to quash the proceeding on the above ground. Considering the submissions of Shri Padhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the C.B.I. that the prosecution is now ready for early disposal of the case, I direct that the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar shall try to dispose of T.R. No.151 of 1991 as early as possible preferably by the end of November, 2007.