Baljinder Singh vs State of Punjab .

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of impugned FIR No. 193 dated 3151982, Annexure P/l, under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, whereby case for recovery of 100 Kgs. of lahan was registered at Police Station, Jhabal, district Amritsar.

According to the petitioner, neither any recovery was effected from him, nor challan was presented against him in the trial Court for the last more than 8 years after the registration of the said case.

The State has not cared to file any reply in the instant case even though several opportunities were granted to the State counsel to do so.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

In spite of inordinate delay of more than 8 years no challan has, go for been presented against the petitioner in the trial Court and as such the trial of the petitioner has been delayed without any cogent or sufficient reason. This is clearly a negation of constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial as contempated under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when inordinate delay referred to above, does not arise from the default of the petitioner. Not there is any other extraordinary or exceptional reason to explain such delay. I find support on this point from the Full Bench authority of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) RCR(Crl.) 302 (Patna) : 1986 Crl LJ 1771, wherein it was held that the right of a speedy public trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been ruled that a callous and inordinately prolonged delay of seven years or more (which does not arise from the default of the accused on otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason) in investigation and original trial for offences other than capital ones, plainly violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

I find further support on this point on the Single Bench authority of this Court in Amarjit Singh Dhingra, Executive Engineer v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 193 and Amar Nath and others v. The State of Punjab, 1988(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 419.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned first information report, Annexure P/l, and the resultant proceedings taken thereunder pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran are directed to, be quashed and this petition is accordingly allowed.