PRITHVI RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 233/88 (State vs. Prithvi Raj), wherein he is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420 & 467 I. P. C. read with section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar since the year 1978.

(2.) THE skeleton facts of this case are short and simple and can be recapitulated within a narrow compass. It appears Padam Singh, Enforcement Inspector, Sri Ganganagar on 10. 8. 1978 lodged a written report at Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar that the petitioner along with co-accused Satnam were caught red handed, while they were attempting to procure eleven cement bags from M/s. Sanghi Asbestos Cement Products on the basis of forged permits. After investigation, on 5. 10. 1978, a challan was submitted against the petitioner and co-accused Satnam in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. THE case was adjourned numerous times for hearing the arguments for framing the charge and ultimately after a lapse of about 6- 1/2 years i. e. on 15-2- 1985 charges under section 420, and 467 I. P. C. read with section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act were framed. In the year 1988 co- accused Satnam died and proceedings against him were abated. THEreafter from 1. 12. 1989 till this date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and still more than four prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

(3.) IN Sheela Barse & Anr. vs. Union of INdia & Ors. , (2) their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that if an accused is not tried speedily and his criminal trial remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge for unnecessary or unreasonable time, his fundamental right of speedy trial is vitiated, unless such a trial is held-up on account of an interim order passed by a superior court or due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. It was reiterated that the consequence of violation of such a fundamental right, the trial would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in prejudice to the fundamental right.