CHHOTE LAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above three Criminal Misc. Petitions, the petitioner has prayed to quash criminal proceedings pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti-corruption Cases) Jaipur on the ground of delay. As there is a common ground in all the petitions, they may be disposed of conveniently by a common order.

(2.) THE old saying 'justice delayed is justice denied' has now been given shape in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. After dynamic interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Menaka Gandhi's case (1) the judgment of the apex court of the country in Hussamara Khatoon's case (2) has further expanded Article 21 in dispensation of criminal justice recognizing the right to speedy trial as a part and parcel of the fundamental right. The constitutional position is now well settled, the right to a speedy trial is one of the dimensions of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) FOUR Checking Parties were also deputed by the Chief Engineer for cheking and re-measurement of the various works executed at different places. Party No. 1 was headed by Sh. B. L. Hawa, Asstt. Engineer, PWD (B&r) Planning, Sub-Division-II, Jaipur, Party No. 2 was headed by Sh. D. B. Chanchalani, Asstt. Engineer, PWD (B&r) MREC Division Jaipur, Party No. 3 was headed by Sh. V. P. Srivastava, Asstt. Engineer PWD (B&r) East Sub-Division, Jaipur and Party No. 4 was headed by Sh. H. C. Gupta, Asstt. Engineer, PWD (B&r) Sub-division, Jaipur. These parties submitted their respective reports to the Additional Chief Engineer Shri S. Adariyappa. The Additional Chief Engineer examined the matter and found that there were many irregularities in those cases. For the over-payments, Mr. Adaviyappa has observed as under in his letter dated 28. 2. 1973 to Chief Engineer :- "most of the irregularities were committed during early part of the year 1971. As indicated in the report contained in the appendices, the measurements recorded by the Checking Parties may not represent correctly, the work might have been done by the Contractors and as such, the amounts of over-payments worked out may not truely represent the over-payment involved. However, the reports and statements do establish that there have been over-payments. "