CHANDRADEO SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER This application by the soie petitioner is for quashing the entire proceeding against him in G.R.No.1362 of 1985 arising out of Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S.Case Wo.79/85.

(2.) THE fact, in short giving rise to this application is that on 6.7.85 on the basis of a written report dated 29.8.83 submitted by the then Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai, Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 79/85 was instituted against the petitioner and others under sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468 and 409 IPC. With the report a petition filed by some pension holders and villagers was attached in which it was stated that on 25.5.82 the petitioner who at the relevant time was posted as Block Development Officer of Cheriya Bariyarpur Block came to the house of one Jag -dish Mahto, the then Mukhiya of Kumbhi Gram Panchayat for distributing the old age pension which was distributed but instead of Rs.180/ - only a sum of Rs.90/ -was paid to each of pension holders. It was further reported that a committee constituted by Panchayat Samiti had submitted a report to the effect that there had been misappropriation in distribution of old age pension but no action on that -report was taken. After investigation char -gesheet against some other co -accused persons was submitted who were put on trial and were acquitted by the court below on 10.4.91. So far the case of petitioner and one another co -accused Nageshwar Singh is concerned, the police when submitted chargesheet against other co -accused persons reported that sanction order for their prosecution had not been received and supplementary chargesheet will be submitted against them after receipt of the sanction order. According to the petitioner, neither any sanction order has been passed nor police has submitted report of investigation against him and the case is pending for receipt of final form.

(3.) FROM the certified copies of the order sheets of the court below filed by the petitioner it appears that some of the co -accused persons against whom chargesheet was earlier submitted were, after trial, acquitted on 10.4.91. It further appears that in that chargesheet it was mentioned that so far the case of petitioner and co -accused Nageshwar Prasad is concerned the supplementary chargesheet will be submitted after receipt of the sanction order. Copies of order sheets further show that the case is since pending against the petitioner for receipt of final form and on a number of occasions the court below had reminded the officer -in -charge of concerned police station for submitting final form. On one occasion the officer -in -charge of Cheriya Bariyarpur Police Station by his letter dated 24.3.93 informed the court that no record of Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.79/85 was pending in his police station and so far sanction order in respect of petitioner is concerned, inquiry may be held from the crime section of the office of the Superintendent of Police. The court then wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, also but no reply was received. When the petitioner filed application in this Court the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State prayed for time to seek instructions and to file counter affidavit and two weeks ' time was granted for this purpose by order dated 20.1.2000 with observation that no further adjournment will be allowed. Again on 10.3.2000 this Court granted another two weeks ' time to the State to file counter affidavit with an observation that no further adjourrtment will be allowed but in spite of it again by order dated 30.3.2000 two weeks time for seeking instruction was granted to the State but no counter affidavit has been filed. From these facts it appears that the prosecution is not taking any interest and is sitting tight over the matter and this case is pending only for obtaining sanction order since last about 15 years. In absence of any response by State in spite of opportunities given to it, it is not known when the decision on the point of sanction will be taken and investigation against the petitioner will be complete. It is really a matter of great concern that investigation against some of the co -accused persons was complete who after trial have been acquitted way back in the year 1991 but the investigation against the petitioner is pending only on account of sanction for prosecution. This Court is quite aware of the fact that for every delay by prosecution in a criminal case the only remedy is not to quash the entire proceeding but in the present case the non co -operative attitude of the prosecution has kept the court in complete dark to know the reasons about the delay in deciding the matter in respect of sanction of prosecution. This Court is now left with no option but to hold that continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the present case will amount to abuse of process of the court.