Hansa Ram and Another vs State of Rajasthan

S.C. Mital, J.—The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with the prayer that the proceedings of special sessions Case No. 1023/89 (old) and 1/97 (new) pending in the Court of Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act, Bali) may be quashed.

The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Enforcement Inspector, Pali filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners on 24-11-1989 for having committed the offence u/s 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. The learned trial Court took cognizance and the case was postponed for the appearance of the petitioners. The process was not issued to procure the attendance of the witnesses on several dates, further the accused was produced in the Court on 21-9-1994. The case was adjourned for recording the plea of the accused but it was made over to the Court of Sessions Judge for trial on 4-10-1997. It is notable here that the accused remained absent on 11-11-1994 and was produced in the Court after arrest on 24-9-1997. The file was returned by the Sessions Judge, to the learned Chief Judicial Court that necessary order should be taken from the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case and ultimately the case stood transferred to the Sessions Court on 15-10-1997. The case was adjourned for recording plea of the accused but his counsel took adjournments on 1-12-1997, 12-12-1997,17-1-1998 and 1-4-1998. The plea could not be recorded on four dates and the order was passed for framing the charge on 7-5-1999. Thereafter adjournments were sought on 2-6-1998, 20-6-1998 and 22-7-1998 for filing revision petition against the order. The accused remained absent on 8-9-1998. Warrants were issued and bail bonds were forfeited. The case was adjourned for procuring the attendance of the petitioner on seven dates up to 20-11-1999 when the accused was produced after arrest. Adjournment was sought for next date 2-12-1998 on the ground that revision is to be filed against the order for framing the charge. The petitioner was released on bail on 2-12-1999. Order sheets have not been filed beyond this date by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case is pending against the petitioner for the last 11 years. During this period he has remained in custody from 24-9-1997 to 17-10-1997 and 20-11-1999 to 2-12-1999 i.e. for 36 days. The case is pending at the stage of framing the charge and the trial is likely to take a long time. It is submitted that the petitioner has already suffered mental agony, physical discomfort and financial loss. In these circumstances, the proceedings may be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this contention on the ground that the accused himself is responsible for the delay and he cannot take benefit of his own fault. Therefore in view of the nature of the offence and delay on the part of the petitioner, the trial should further proceed.

I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. I have also carefully perused the order-sheets which have been briefly mentioned above showing the reasons for adjourning the case on different dates. It is evident from the order-sheet that:

the adjournments were taken by the petitioner on the dates when he was present in the Court and the case could not make progress.

he absented himself during the trial twice and attendance could not be procured for a long time even on issuing the warrant of arrest.

he thereafter further avoided the framing of charge/recording the plea saying that he will prefer revision petition against the order of framing the charge but he never informed the Court that he had filed any revision petition nor it has been made clear during the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Therefore it is crystal clear that the delay has occasioned in this case entirely due to fault of the petitioner and I entirely agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own lapse. It is true that he has remained in custody for 36 days during the trial but it was all because he became absent and did not appear himself knowing it well that proceedings were pending against him. On both the occasions, he was produced in the Court after effecting the arrest on the service of the warrant of arrest. The accused in a Crl. case enjoys a fundamental right of speedy trial but at the same time it is incumbent on the accused that the delay should not be caused by him and he on his part should co-operate with the Court to expedite the trial. I am clearly of the view that in this case there is no violation of the right of the petitioner for speedy trial in the facts and circumstances as stated above. In this view of the matter, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings either in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court.

Consequently, the petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is hereby dismissed.