MAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a cashier of a Co -operative Society, was accused of having committed criminal breach of trust of its funds amounting to Rs. 33,374/ -. The trial commenced against the petitioner in the year 1975 but could be concluded on 8th September, 1981 ending up in his conviction and sentence. He filed an appeal before the Court of Session. A number of grounds were taken. The fore -most amongst them was that some prosecution evidence had been relied upon by the trial Magistrate to convict the petitioner without putting that evidence to him in his examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. Finding that fact to be apparent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad remanded the case to the learned Magistrate from the stage of examining the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. It is against that order that the petitioner has come up in revision.

(2.) THE only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that nearly ten years have elapsed from 1975 onwards and ends of justice would require that this case be now given a burial by setting aside the order of remand and acquitting the accused. I am unimpressed with the argument. In such matters the offence is committed stealthily that it takes time for its detection. This kind of criminal trial has a civil colour in its always, and the evidence normally tends to be lengthy and time -consuming. Passage of years cannot weight with the Court to let a guilty man escape having swindled public money. In the instant case even the sum happens to be large. The trial Magistrate had to examine 13 prosecution witnesses and 8 defence witnesses. It is not the fault of the Court if the trial took such a long time. Thus it appears to me that it was not a case in which on account of the time involved, the proceedings be dropped, especially when the learned Additional Sessions Judge has opted for the remand for examination of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. There is nothing wrong with the discretion exercised. I do not find any reason for interference. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.