CHAMAN LAL JALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the medium of petition in hand, the petitioners namely, Chaman Lal Jalla has invoked powers of this court u/s 561 -A Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in File No. 132/78 (old) 3547 82 (old), No. 13 to 27/87 (old) and now file No. 5 to 19 (new) of 2000 Under Sections 420,409,467,471 and 477 -A RPC titled as State Vs. Mohan Krishan Razdhan and anothers pending decision before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban. It is inter -alia maintained in the petition that a false and frivolous case came to be registered against the petitioner and one Mohan Krishan Razdhan by police station Shergari, Srinagar (Kashmir) for offences under section 409/420/467/471 and 477 -A RPC being file No. 132/78. That during the investigation, the petitioner was put under restraint and finally incomplete challan came to be presented before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar on 17 -06 -1978. That finally complete challan came to be presented before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar on 28 -06 -1982. That the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar directed that the challan be produced before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who in turn came to commit the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Srinagar. That the case is still at its initial stage. That the accused has a right of speedy trial. That the case in question against the petitioner is pending for the last 23 years. That the right to speedy trial is one of the basic right. That an application for quashing the proceedings and seeking discharge of petitioners was filed before the trial court. That the said petition also has not been disposed of. That there being inordinate delay, the petitioner stands denied the right to speedy trial. That the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner.

(2.) NOTICE of this petition was given to the state respondent on 21 -07 -2002. When the case was listed before this court, Mr. Rehman caused his appearance on behalf of respondent -State. When Mr. Goja started the arguments Mr. H. Rehman, CA left the court room and did not return. Today also, nemo is present for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also persuade the record of the case.

(3.) IN a case Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Naik reported in AIR 1992 SC 1701, their lordships of Supreme Court have while dealing with the subject of speedy trial issued the guidelines with fore -warning that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to for see all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. These propositions which are enumerated in para -54 of this judgement are reproduced as under: -