GYANCHAND AGRAWAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner at the material time was Deputy Manager Incharge stores, Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Dhurwa, It appears that on 14-3-1985 one Tarkeshwar Pd. Singh who at the relevant time was Supervisor of Prince Electricals, Ancillary Industrial Area, Hatia appeared before superintendent of Police, C. B. I. and submitted a petition that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from him for supplying materials. The S. P., C.B.I, after completing official formalities constituted a trap party. On 15-3-1985 the members of the trap party assembled at the works site of the M/s. Prince Electricals to watch and see the activities of the petitioner in connection with the demand of gratification. The petitioner was caught by the traping party with Rs. 2,500. A case being R.C. No. 2 of 1985 dated 15-3-1985 was registered against the petitioner which is pending in the court of the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay. As stated earlier a case was registered on 15-3-1985, the petitioner was arrested and was suspended on the same date from his service. According to the petitioner, charge-sheet had been signed by the C. B. I. on 31-10-1985, This fact has been disputed (sic). It was stated that till date no police papers has not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged his suspension in C.W.J.C. No. 431 of 1992 (R) which was disposed of on 11-3-1992 by a Bench of this Hon'ble Court comprising the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narayan Roy. Their Lordships quashed the suspension order and made certain observation against the C. B. I. which read thus: This is a case of the most human manner in which a person is being treated by his employer and also by the prosecutor. This relates to a C. B. I. case on the basis of which a criminal case was lodged in the year 1985 against the petitioner i.e. about seven years back. The charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1986. Pursuant to our order dated 10th of March, 1992, the orders-sheet in respect of this case being Crime No. 2 of 1985 State v. G.C. Agrawal, was brought before us. We find from the same that though the petitioner has been regularly appearing from the year 1986, the matter is being adjourned from time to time for non-supply of the police papers. Curiously enough, the learned Counsel appearing for C. B. I. states that the recording in the order-sheet is wrong and that the police papers were submitted to the petitioner. We are not willing to accept any such statement from the Bar which is against the order appearing from the order-sheet itself. We cannot allow any oral submission to be made which goes against the order-sheet. If the contention made on behalf of the C. B. 1. is correct then steps would have been taken for correcting the order-sheet which has not been done. The fact remains that no progress has been made for the last six years, though the charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 1986. In that view of the matter, we give liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate proceeding for quashing the criminal case because, in our opinion, it is a tit and proper case whore the court should interefere because of such delay. However, as we are concerned with only the order of suggestion in the present petition, we pass the following order. The suspension order is setaside. However, the respondent-Corporation shall be entitled to pass such order as it think fit commensurate with this position by alloting him work anywhere and not at Ranchi. As we have already stated, this will not prevent the petitioner for filing any proceeding for quashing the criminal case. It is a pity that such a contention is sought to be raised by the C. B. I. through its lawyer without making any application before the court to the effect that the recording in the order-sheet was incorrect. There is no explanation why though the charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1986 but the police papers have not be supplied and the case has not been disposed of as yet. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Joint Registrar, Ranchi to the C. B. I, authorities at Delhi and the Senior most officer of C. B. I. in Bihar for taking necessary action. This application is disposed or accordingly.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the C. B. I. the following facts has been placed. (A) The paper was supplied to the petitioner on 16-1-1986 but later the petitioner pointed out that some of the documents were not given to him. (B) The trial of the case of the petitioner is in progress, on 13-4-1992 one witness has been examined by the court below. On 27-4-1992 two witnesses were summoned to appear for these evidence, on 1-5-1992 one witness was present in this case for his evidence but since this Court stayed proceeding of the court below on 4-5-1992 the case of the petitioner is pending for further evidence of the witness.

(3.) Mr. Shakil Ahmad learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on AIR 1978 SC 597, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Hussainare Khattoon v. State of Bihar , which was partly approved by the Supreme Court in Antulay case (supra). The Honb'le Supreme Court after reviewed all the previous decisions on the subject laid down guideline in Para 54 of the report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia laid down the following propositions: