Rajinder Golcha vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Rajinder Golcha has filed this petition under Section 492 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of F.I.R. No. 252 dated 22.7.1981 registered at Police Station, City, Abohar and the proceedings initiated thereon against him.

The impugned F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. on the basis of a complaint made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, by the Manager of Punjab National Bank, Abohar branch on the averments that firm M/s. Suraj Mal Nathu Ram, Abohar, through its proprietor Rajinder Golcha had been operating upon an account with the Abohar Branch of Punjab National Bank since long. On 20.5.1981 the petitioner Rajinder Golcha by dishonest misrepresentation, induced the Manager of the bank to purchase one bill for a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/ and the Manager in good faith purchased the bill accompanying goods receipt No. 6933 dated 18.5.1981 issued by M/s. Globe Transport Corporation, Chandi Ki Teksal, Jaipur, through its agent at Abohar and signed by Shri Rajinder Goel of M/s. Okara Transport Company, Abohar. The amount of Rs. 1,48,000/ being the value of the bill was credited to the account of the party who availed of the same by transfer entry in favour of M/s. Oswal Cotton Traders. The documents purchased on 20.5.1981 were received back unpaid with the remarks ''payment not forthcoming'' vide Punjab National Bank House, Bombay Branch of the bankers. The goods receipt in question on the basis of which money was obtained was actually a false document because no goods had been transported on the strength of the goods receipt and it was subsequently learnt that M/s. Globe Transport Corporation did not have any office at Abohar. The insurance cover note was also found to be false document as no goods had been insured by the National Insurance Company Limited, Bombay. In this way the petitioner committed a fraud with the bank.

The petitioner alleged that although the F.I.R. was registered on 22.7.1981 yet the investigation was not completed for more than three years and challan was presented only on 12.11.1984. He along with others was chargesheeted only on 25.2.1986. A supplementary challan was filed on 27.11.1987 and a list of 26 witnesses was supplied. After second chargesheet was framed 16 witnesses were examined and 10 witnesses still remained to be examined by the prosecution. The case was adjourned 43 times upto 28.10.1992 and the trial had not completed even after the lapse of 101/2 years. Delay in conclusion of the trial was not at all due to any act or conduct on his part. The pendency of the proceedings for such a long time, affected his liberty and his business was also ruined. He was denied his right to speedy trial and the first information report was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

In the return filed by the respondents it was maintained that evidence of the prosecution was closed on 19.1.1993 and statements of the accused had also been recorded subsequently. Some evidence in defence too was produced by the petitioner and the trial of the case was likely to be completed as soon as the evidence in defence was closed.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the case was registered against the petitioner on 22.7.1981, the trial was not completed for more than 10 years. The petitioner was not responsible for any delay in the trial. Right to speedy trial was inalienable fundamental right of the petitioner and it was very difficult for him to produce evidence in defence after lapse of such a long period. The first information report was, thus, liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Madheshwardhari Singh v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 302 , and Asanand v. State of Haryana, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 191 .

There is no dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the above mentioned authorities that speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right and is essence of justice, but then each case is to be decided on its own facts. The petitioner in this case was charged for offences under Section 120B, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. for obtaining a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/ from the Bank by producing false documents. A supplementary challan had to be produced in the case which consumed time. The number of witnesses to be examined was also large and their presence had to be procured from different places as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. There was, thus, exceptional reasons for delay in the disposal of the case. Now when the prosecution evidence has been closed, statements of the accused have been recorded, some witnesses in defence too have been examined and the judgment can be pronounced as soon as the petitioner closes his defence, I find no reason to quash the F.I.R. on the ground of delay in completion of the trial. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.