Ram Kishan vs State of Haryana

H.S. Rai, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos 4918M, 5249M, 5251M, 5255M, 5257M, 5359M, and 5261M of 1988. In Criminal Misc. No. 4918M the embezzlement related to May 1975, in Criminal Misc. No. 5249M June, 1975, in Criminal Misc No. 5251M from December 1974 to March 1975, in Criminal Misc. No. 5253M November, 1973, in Criminal Misc. No. 5255M June/July 1975, in Criminal Misc. No. 5257M August, 1975, in Criminal Misc. No. 5259M July, 1975 and in Criminal Misc. No. 5261M June, 1975.

The brief facts leading to these petitions are that vide FIR No. 268, dated 20th October, 1977, a case under Sections 409/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Baragudha, District Sirsa. He was arrested on 3rd October, 1978 and was bailed out on 13th October, 1978. He continued to appear in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa but no challan was presented and ultimately after about 21 days of hearing the case was adjourned sine die on 14th August, 1981,

On 30th March, 1987 challans were presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa and petitioner was summoned. He appeared in Court on 17th July, 1987. Charges against him and his coaccused Khusni Ram, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, were framed on 12th February, 1988. In Criminal Misc. No. 4918M the charge was that he had embezzled Rs. 225/ in Criminal Misc. No. 5249M the charge was that he and Khushi Ram have embezzled Rs. 1500/ in Criminal Misc No 5251M the charge was that he has embezzled Rs. 1133.64; in Criminal Misc. No. 5253M the charge is that both the accused have embezzled Rs. 1383.00; in Criminal Misc. No 5255M the charge is that both the accused have embezzled Rs. 3750/; in Criminal Misc No. 5257M the charge is that both the accused have embezzled Rs. 4110.00; in Criminal Misc. No. 5259M the charge is that both the accused have embezzled Rs. 7,000/ and in Criminal Misc. No. 5261M the charge is that both the accused have embezzled Rs. 9000/.

This petition has been mainly filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the incident related to 1975 and the case was registered in 1977 but the challans against the petitioner were presented in 1987 and so he has faced the prosecution for the last more than 10 years. It is further submitted that the delay in the prosecution is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Patna 324 Amar Nath & others v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 257 : 1988 (2) CLR 419 , Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988, Chandigarh Criminal Cases 298 and Siriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 401.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the charges against the petitioner are serious. He has embezzled Panchayat funds and as the investigation took its own time the challan could not be presented before 1987. He has cited V.K. Aggarwal v. Vasantrai Bhagwanji Bhatia and others, 1988 Crl. LJ 1106.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that challan was presented after about 10 years of the registration of the case. It is also conceded that the petitioner had not contributed in any manner to the delay in presentation of the challan. In Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, S.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (as he then was) speaking for the Full Bench laid down :

"Now applying the above, it is common ground that in Cr. WJC 262/85 the first information report was recorded as far back as the 20th of November, 1966. The list has thus entered its 20th anniversary. The petitioner has borne the harrowing burden of a prolonged investigation and trial for nearly two decades and if the prosecution''s plea of further time to either prove or reconstruct the alleged sanction order is to be allowed, one cannot easily, foresee the further delays in the matter. It is the admitted position that the petitioner who is a public servant of gazetted rank has laid under the shadow of a criminal charge all this while which has wrecked his service career. It is not even remotely established that the delay in the investigation and the subsequent trial can at all be laid at the door of the petitioner. Indeed the boot is entirely on the other leg. The prosecution despite the closure of the case a number of times by the trial Court went up in revision and had the issue reopened. There has been no absconding or any other obstructive tactics by the petitioner herein which could even remotely point an accusing finger at him. On the facts no extraordinary or exceptional reason for the delay could be pointed out by the prosecution and indeed the tardiness and nonchallaned with which the prosecution has been conducted appear manifest on the record. It is thus plain that the case herein comes quaiely within the rules enunciated above. The constitutional right to speedy trial by a fair, just and reasonable procedure now recognised under Art 21 of the Constitution stands plainly violated. As has been authoritatively laid down in Maksudan Singh''s case (AIR 1986 Pat. 38) (FB), the petitioner is entitled to an unconditional release and the charges levelled 8 against him would necessarily fall to the ground. The petition is consequently allowed and the investigation and the trial against the petitioner are hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that this in no way would affect any departmental proceeding or penalties already instituted or contemplated against the petitioner

I am in full agreement with the view taken by S. S. Sandhawalia, CJ. Nothing has been brought on the record as to why the investigating agency took ]10 years to file the challan against the petitioner It has an ordinary case of embezzlement of Panchayat funds and did not require any elaborate investigation or enquiry. Such an enquiry cannot. In any standard take so many years. While agreeing with the observations made by the Patna High Court in the above mentioned case, I quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner but this quashing of the proceedings would not, however, affect any departmental proceedings or penalties already instituted or contemplated against the petitioner.

With these observations, the proceedings pending against the petitioner relating to FIR No. 269, dated 20th October, 4977 are hereby quashed.