ROOP NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Roop Narain Singh was a lower division clerk in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Todabhim, district Sawai Madhopur. In the year 1975 a First Information Report was lodged against him at Police Station Todabhim alleging, Petitioner and misappropriated money amounting to over a lac of rupees while he was working as Rokadia The period for which the embezzlement alleged was 1969 to 1974. It appears that the embezzlement was detected when the accounts were audited in the year 1973-74. The First Information Report was bifurcated into six cases relating to each year and thereafter three challans were filed in 1977. two were filed m the year 1978 and one case was filed in the year 1981. The offence for which the charged are framed very from Sections 409, 407, 468, 479A, 209/120B and Sec. 201 read with Sec. 120G IPC.

(2.) The petitioner has moved six different petition for quashing the proceedings against him on the ground of delay m the trial of the cases. In the five cases, pending against him the charge was framed on Nov. 6th, 1979 while in the sixth case, it was framed on Aug. 3rd, 1989. In all the cases, no witness has been examined so far According to the petitioner, there was not a single adjournment on his behalf and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. During he was 15 years, no progress has been made and on most of the dates witnesses were not present and it on any occasion any witness was present then the record was not available. It has been contended that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner who has been facing the trial for the last 15 years, and some times appearing on different dates in the six cases should not be further subjected to harassment and the proceedings should be quashed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court.

(3.) In Sriniwas Gopal Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 36 there was a delay of years in proceeding with the criminal prosecution for the offence of rash and negligant driving under Sec. 279 read with Sec. 304A and 338 IPC. It was held that having regard to the nature of the offence there is dangerous delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution. 91/2 years in a trial in a case of rash and negligent driving is too long a time. Quick justice was said to be a sine qua, a non of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. When the petitioner was kent in suspended animation for a long time without any cause, it was said to be against the spirit of the procedure established by law. In the circumstances, the prosecution was not allowed to proceed further.