OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for both sides.

(2.) THE only contention now raised before me in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jagadhari (Annexure P -1), the notice dated 17.12.1987 (Annexure P -2) and annexure P -3 the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 15.3.1996 converting the trial from summary procedure to the warrant procedure is delay of trial on the ground that the sample was taken on 26.9.1986 the complaint filed on 14.11.1986 and tried as a summons case for more than nine years and now converted on 15.3.1996 to be tried as a warrant case. According to the petitioner his right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India for speedy trial has been violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon decisions reported in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana (1995(2) R.C.R. 89) : [1994(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 425 (SC)], Satya Pal v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1995(2) R.C.R. 110) and Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana (1995(2) R.C.R 119), and contends that in these cases where the case has been lingering on for periods ranging from five to ten years, the proceedings have been quashed on the ground that the accused has been denied the right to have a speedy trial. But as has been conceded by him the decision in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1995(2) R.C.R 89) held that the accused should not be at fault for the delay.

(3.) THE reply filed by the respondent shows that the petitioner herein has been responsible for the delay of nearly five years. In paragraph -5 of the reply, it has been stated that the case was fixed for defence evidence from 28.1.1991 to 16.2.1996. In the reply the details of the reasons for the adjournments have been given and these details clearly show that it is the petitioner who has been responsible for this delay of five years Therefore out of the total nine years, the case has been pending for five years due to the fault of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the delay and contend that the proceedings should be quashed. Therefore, this contention of petitioner cannot be accepted.