BRIJ KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the .Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 89/86 arising out of R.C. 48/86, C.B.I. Patna pending at the cognizance stage in the Court of Special Judge, (C.B.I.), North Bihar, Patna under Section 5 (1) (E) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as prolong criminal proceeding offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the alleged offence is not even prima facie made out.

(2.) A case against the petitioner, who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (1970 batch) and is at present posted as Additional Member' Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna was instituted being R.C. 48/86 nearly 10 years back by the C.B.I. on 8-12-1986, when he was posted at Darbhanga as Commissioner on the allegation that the petitioner has been in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Photostat copy of the F.I.R. has been appended as Annexure-2 to the present application.

(3.) The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the case has been instituted on 8-12-1986 and the charge sheet has been submitted on 30-12-1996 i.e. after more than ten years after the date of the institution of the case, as such, in view of decision of this Court as well as Apex Court, as the petitioner's right to speedy Trial has been infringed, the prosecution was fit to be quashed. In this regard reliance has been made upon a decision of this Court reported in 1997 (1) All Patna Law Reporter 51; 1997(1) BLJ 283 in the case of R.K. Mandal v. The State of Bihar. A Division Bench of this Court while relying on the case of Santosh De v. Archna Guha reported in A.I.R. 1994 SUPREME COURT 1229 following principles laid down in the Antuley case held that unexplained delay of eight years in commencement of the trial itself infringes the right of the accused to speedy trial. Admittedly, in the said case delay was not attributed to the accused as such, the proceeding against the accused of the said case which was quashed was upheld.