RAM ASHREY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 733 of 1977 arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 16/76 pending in the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah. The quashing is sought on the ground of delay in concluding the trial. The facts of the case, so far as relevant, may be stated as follows : Raj Kumar Ram Versus State Of Bihar

(2.) JANG Bahadur Singh lodged first in formation report alleging commission of various offences at the hands of the four named accused including the petitioner on 21.4.1976. A formal case i.e. Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 1976. was instituted on 22.4.1976 in which after conclusion of the investigation charge -sheet was submitted on 4...1977. On 22.8.1977 cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 30.11.1977. On 21.1.1981 charges were framed for various offences including Sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. At the trial which followed, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses before the petitioner approached this Court in the present application seeking quashing of the prosecution on the ground that the period of ten years has passed and in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Patna 324 : 1986 East Cr C 17 (FB) entire prosecution was fit to be quashed.

(3.) THE decision in Madheshwardhari Singh 'scase was challenged by the State of Bihar in Cr Appeal No. 126. of 1987 before the Supreme Court. The said appeal was decided along with other appeals involving identical point entitled as Abdul Rehman Antulay V/s. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701:1992 East Cr C 360 (SC). Dealing with the decision in Madheshwardhari Singh 'scase (supra) and the propositions laid down therein vide para 47 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that it is not possible in the very nature of things and the present day circumstances to draw a time limit beyond which a criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to go. Wherever a complaint of infringement of right to speedy trial is made the Court has to consider all the circumstances of the case and arrive at a decision whether in fact the proceeding is pending unjustifiably for long period. The Court noted that in every case the prosecution may not be blamed for the delay, in many cases the accused has to be blamed, in some other cases it is the system which is to be blamed, but that does not mean that merely by efflux of time, the prosecution could come to a grinding halt.