Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 424 - HC - CustomsRight to speedy trial - Allegation of corruption on the ASI / Policer officer posted at Railway - Abetment in evasion of customs duty - Inordinate delay in filing the PR/final report - it is submitted that the allegation made in the complaint or in the final report submitted by the Customs Authority did not constitute offence punishable u/s 135 of Customs Act against the present petitioners - when the P.R disclosed sufficient materials against the present petitioners to proceed; and fact goes to show that the criminal proceeding has not proceeded at all though it has been pending since 25 years, is it justifiable for this revisional court to quash proceeding on the sole ground that the accused has denied his right to speedy trial? HELD THAT:- The revisional court has the power to quash the proceeding if it appears that there are no sufficient materials to proceed further or if it appears that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court. In considering the right of the accused of speedy trial in my view the test is whether the personal life or liberty of the present petitioners was at all infringed by the pendency of the criminal proceeding since long. If it appears that the present petitioner has had suffered immense and his life and personal liberty was jeopardy during the entire period for the pendency of the criminal proceeding then the relief on the ground of right to speedy trial guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 21 must be established. But if it appears that no hindrance has caused to petitioner during the entire period or his day to day life was not disrupted due to the pendency of the criminal proceeding then the right enshrined under Article 21 need not necessarily be come into play. During their entire period of service they never terminated due to the pendency of this criminal proceeding nor they anyway disturbed in performing their service. After successful completion of service period they retired on superannuation. The petitioners claim for right to speedy trial cannot be entertained of this case as there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner in the P.R. there are no justification to entertain the present petitioner to quash the criminal proceeding. The instant criminal revision is dismissed being devoid of merit.
|