TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olitan Magistrate, G.R.P., Kanpur. All these cases are still pending and they are at the very initial stages. These petitions are for the purpose of quashing the prosecution on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay in the prosecution and conduct of these cases. 3. In all these cases, most of the accused are common, namely, B.D. Agnihotri, B.S. Parihar, Ramanlal Parikh and D.P. Khushwaha and N.S. Yadav, being the Petitioner in all these petitions. The petitioner and the said B.S. Parihar are from Kanpur. The said D.P. Kushwaha has been made an approver. 4. Broadly, the prosecution case is that on 24-10-1974 one Shri G.N. Mehra, Commissioner and Director of Industries, U.P., made a complaint to the Government regarding the bogus units floated in UP and as to how those bogus units have availed of import facilities. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the Essentiality Certificates, which came to be issued on the recommendations of the said B.S. Parihar, who was then working as an Inspector of Industries in the Office of the Area Development Officer along with Shri B.D. Agnihotri, who was then working as the Area Development Officer, Department of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with the other cases, which were already pending in that Court. 6. Accordingly, all the cases filed in Kanpur came to be transferred to the 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, and they were renumbered as Case Nos. 4/S, 5/S, 6/S and 7/S and 8/S; all of 1983. The Petitioner says that even though the Supreme Court had directed that all the cases should be tried along with the cases which are pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Bombay, the cases transferred from Kanpur came to be filed in the 38th, Ballard Pier, Bombay, and that till today, the prosecution has taken no steps to see that all the cases are grouped in one and the same Court. 7. On or about 15-9-1982, one of the Criminal Cases bearing Case No. 19/S of 1981 came to be committed to the Sessions Court, Bombay, on the Original Accused No. 1 by name Ram Patel turning to be an approver and his statement being recorded. Since then the case is pending in the Sessions Court at Bombay under Case No. 446 of 1982. It appears that at the time the order of committal was passed the petitioner was not in the Court and he was shown as absconding. Therefore, the committal order was restrict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tay. 11. The Petitioner has annexed a detailed roznama in these cases. The roznama clearly........ the cases have been adjourned from time to time. On a rough calculation, the cases appear to have been adjourned on or about 75 occasions. 12. In this background, the petitioner has filed these petitions for the purpose of quashing all the prosecutions. The petitioner submitted that although 15 to 16 years are over after the institution of these cases, no progress whatsoever has been made in any of these cases. The petitioner further submits that even if the prosecution is allowed to proceed with the cases now the same will not be over for another ten years. Most of the cases may have to be committed to the Court of Sessions and the committal proceeding themselves will take considerable time. After the cases are committed to the Court of Sessions, the court of sessions, which is already congested with large number of cases, would take at least another decade, for disposal. Since speedy trial, though not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this inordinate delay amounts to denial of justice and denial of fundamental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat after the petitioner went to the Supreme Court, the matter remained pending for sometime in the Supreme Court and thereafter the order of transfer was passed. Thereafter, for sometime, the petitioner was absent, so also on some of the occasions some of the accused had remained absent. He then submitted that before they could begin, Mr. Agnihotri filed Criminal Application in 1985 and obtained stay of the trial. The stay will operate. In these circumstances, he submitted that it cannot be said that the prosecution was responsible for the delay in the trial of these cases. He further submitted that the charges are very serious and the amounts involved are fairly substantial in all these cases and, therefore, it is necessary that the accused should not be allowed to go scot free in all these cases. Further, it is necessary that in the interests of justice there should be a trial and the guilty should be punished. 15. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chitnis relied on certain cases. Firstly, he cited the case of Machander v. Hyderabad State, reported in A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 792. That was a case where a murder trial was pending for about 42 years. It appear that the trial proceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just . If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just , such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Art. 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be reasonable, fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and it would fall out of Art. 21. There can, therefore be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21." Therefore, whatever be the reason for the delay, it is imperative that the prosecution must see that the case is brought to a reasonably expeditious trial and the case is disposed of without inordinate delay. 18. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deshmukh J, relying on several cases of the Supreme Court, quashed the prosecution. 21. I am inclined to agree that despite the enormity of the charges, and the plurality of factors that virtually stalled the progress of these cases, having regard to the static approach of the prosecution, it is not in the interests of justice to keep the cases pending indefinitely. There is no reasonable hope of any of these cases, even if allowed to be proceeded with, coming to an end within a very short time from now. By the very nature of the complaint, the cases may have to be committed to the Court of Sessions. Taking into account the large number of witnesses who have to come from different parts of the country, I am sure that the committal proceedings will itself last for a long time. Thereafter, if one takes into account the time that is normally taken in the Sessions Court, especially in the present context of heavy congestion in that Court, the cases will continue indefinitely for at least another 10 years, which means at the trial stage these cases will last for more than 25 years. Such a situation is clearly contrary to Article 21 of The Constitution of India. 22. Mr. Jaisinghani r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Sessions and has been numbered as Sessions Case No. 446 of 1982. 24. I further understand that the remaining cases, namely, Criminal Case Nos. 13/S, 18/S and 20/S of 1975 have been renumbered as Criminal Case Nos. 132/S, 133/S and 134/S of 1981 respectively and are now pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. 25. As regards the other cases transferred from the Kanpur Court, they all have been transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. As stated above, they are all stayed by virtue of the various petitions filed by the said Mr. G.D. Agnihotri. Since the said Mr. Agnihotri died during the pendency of those petitions, those petitions will automatically abate. However, since I am quashing the prosecutions in all the petitions filed by the present petitioner before me and since all the cases are kept with one another, it is proper and in the interest of justice that I should quash all the prosecutions in all the cases that are pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, and also in the Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
