Raj Kumar Chopra 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) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India relates to quashment of First Information Report No. 66 dated 251989, Annexure P1, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "referred to as the Act).

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the impugned first information report, are, that the present petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Jalandhar, during the period 1975 to 1977. During July, 1975 to April, 1977 the petitioner is alleged to have acquired money by illegal means. He constructed a house in Siri Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar at a cost of Rs. 57,994/ and also purchased coloured T.V. and refrigerator etc. His income from all known sources was Rs. 14,631/ during the said period, and thus, he failed to explain the acquisition of amount of Rs. 62,799/. It was further alleged that the petitioner has acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income and on the basis of these allegations the impugned first information report under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was registered against the petitioner.

The explanation on behalf of the petitioner is that the plot was purchased for Rs. 9000/ in the year 1975 by his wife Mrs. Vijay Chopra and the construction was raised after withdrawing petty amounts from time to time from the Bank accounts, General Provident Fund, Post Office, as well as from the Life Insurance Corporation, and, the construction was completed in the year 1985. It was further pleaded that the petitioner''s wife was employed as teachers in Arya Girls High School and was also doing private coaching and complete details of all these sources were shown to the vigilance Department during the investigation.

The State in its reply pleaded that the petitioner has constructed/completed his house in Siri Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar in the year 1977 and the plea of the petitioner that the house was completed in the year 1985 is an afterthought. It was, however, admitted that criminal case was registered on the basis of the result of preliminary enquiry No. 3 dated 4th February, 1986, and, after collecting oral and documentary evidence, criminal case against the petitioner was registered in the year 1989 and impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner it was vehemently argued that charges of corruption against the petitioner relate to the period in between. July, 1975 and April, 1977 whereas the impugned first information report in this case was lodged on 2nd May, 1989 i.e. after inordinate delay of more than 12 years. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the impugned first information report was registered on the basis of the result of preliminary enquiry dated 4th February, 1986. After collecting oral as well as documentary evidence a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1989 and that the delay in lodging the first information report has been fully explained.

After giving my careful thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the record it is quite evident that inordinate delay of over 12 years in lodging the impugned first information report has not been properly explained. Admittedly the period concerning which expenditure in excess of his known sources of income was incurred by the petitioner relates to the period commencing from July, 1975 to April, 1977. It is difficult to believe that it would take about 9 years for completion of the enquiry. It is equally difficult to believe that after obtaining preliminary enquiry report it would take another three years for collecting other material evidence before lodging of the first information report. This delay is in clear violation of constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when callous and inordinately prolonged delay of 12 years, referred to above, does not arise from the fault of the petitioner nor the same is occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason.

I am supported in my view on this point from Single Bench authorities of this Court in Mangal Singh Kapoor v. The State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 573 ; Adarsh Kumar Batra v. The State of Punjab, 1990 XCVII PLR 217; Amarjit Singh Dhingra, Executive Engineer v. The State of Punjab, 198(2) Recent Criminal Reports 193 and Amar Nath and others v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 419. To the similar effect is the Full Bench authority of Patna High Court in Madheswardhari and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 302, 1986 Crl LJ 1771 , wherein it was held that the right of 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 or is otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason) in investigation and original trial for offences other than capital offences, plainly violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned first information report, Annexure PI and resultant proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioner are directed to be quashed. and this petition is accordingly allowed.