AMITAVA MUKHARJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Misc. Petitions have been filed by petitioners Amitava Mukherjee and Suman Chatarji for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 15/93 which is pending before the Special Judge (ACD), Jaipur for the offences under Ss. 420, 465, 201 and 120-B IPC and under Sec.5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that the petitioner Amitava Mukherjee was working on the post of Director, Telecommunication, Rajasthan Police in the year 1985. THEreafter, three reports came to be lodged (70/88, 123/88 and 8/89) for the offence under Ss. 420, 465, 201 and 120-B IPC and 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Out of the said reports, the Investigating Agency submitted Final Report in FIR No. 123/88 and so far as FIR No. 8/89 is concerned, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court, in case No. 12/93, on 17.1.04. In the instant case, that is FIR No. 70/88 challan came to be filed on 5th of June, 1993, that is to say after a period of 5 years from the date of registration of the report, which was 29th of July, 1988. THEreafter, the petitioner preferred a Misc. Petition (No. 302/95) for quashing of the charge-sheet but without any success as the same was dismissed on 20th Jan., 1998 with the observation that the petitioner may raise his objection at the time of framing charge.

(3.) APART from the material facts taken note of by this Court, hereinbefore, that the instant case was initiated by lodging of report in the year 1988, a perusal of the summary of the order-sheets of the trial Court, which has been placed for perusal by the counsel for the petitioner and thereby marked as `X' for the purpose of identification, goes to show the manner in which the trial is proceeding. A close look to the said summary reveals that the trial has proceeded at a snail's speed so much so that investigation itself was concluded after 5 years, and thereafter, the matter proceeded in the trial court in a most casual manner. It is noteworthy that the High Court had directed, vide its order dated 10.1.02, that the matter should be decided preferably within a period of six months. But even the said directions could not make the trial Court proceed expeditiously in the matter, taking into consideration the said order of the High Court or the fact that in this case, the criminal case was initiated as back as in the year 1988 and since then, the accused petitioners are facing the ordeal of trial.