HARIDWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner in Special Case No. 158/1985 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37(1) of 1978 under Section 5(ii) read with Section 5(i) 5(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) On 30th April, 1978 a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he was in possession of wealth disproportionate to his known source of his income during his service tenure. It is to be stated that at the relevant time the petitioner was acting as Executive Engineer in Road Construction Department, Darbhanga. On 2.1.81 the Investigating Agency submitted a final report stating mistake of facts. The matter was further investigated by the Vigilance Police and on 8.7.82 another report was submitted mentioning the mistake of facts. The matter was put up before the Special Judge. He however, did not agree with the final report submitted by the police and found that there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. As the petitioner was a Government Servant and for prosecution sanction was necessary he directed the authority concerned to take necessary steps in the matter. Thereafter, sanction was obtained and charge sheet was submitted in the years, 1987 and cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 20th June, 1987.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the order of sanction in Cr. W.J.C. No. 242/1988 which was dismissed on 18.11.1988 and the same was upheld by the Apex Court in SLP No. 176/1984 on 22.2.1989. The petitioner again came to this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 330/1990 challenging his prosecution and the same was dismissed on 13.11.90 with an observation to dispose of the case within three months on day-to-day basis. Thereafter, the petitioner again came to this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 267/1992 for quashing the prosecution on the ground of denial of right to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said writ application was dismissed on 30th July, 1992 after coming to the conclusion that the delay was occasioned because of the system itself and the petitioner has come to this Court again and again and the Court has remained without Presiding Officer for quite some time. However, this Court directed for expeditious disposal of the case and thereafter again the present application has been filed for quashing the prosecution.