Romesh Khosla and others vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

The present petition under Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Romesh Khosal and two others praying that the First Information Report Annexure P1 and the order framing the charge Annexure P2 be quashed on the grounds set out in the petition.

The facts giving rise to the petition are that on the basis of a report lodged with the police on 13th February, 1969, investigation against the three petitioners and some others was started for having committed various offences relating of the years 1965 and 1966. On the basis of the investigation, a First Information Report under Sections 406, 409, 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, was, lodged against five persons, including the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3. A challan against the accused was presented in Court on 11th April, 1975 against six persons i.e. the present petitioners and three others, who have since died. In the challan, the prosecution sought to rely on the evidence of over a hundred witnesses as also on several hundred documents, referred to therein. It appears that in the year 1976 one of the coaccused Jaspal Singh, since deceased, filed a revision petition for quashing of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the First Information Report, Annexure P1. On the filing of the petition, the proceedings before the trial Court remained stayed between the years 19761981 but the petition was ultimately dismissed in the year 1981. On the resumption of the trial proceedings before the Court a charge under Sections 120B, 420, 436, 468, 471, 477A, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed on 13th August, 1985. The present petition has been filed on 1st May, 1990, praying that the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed on the ground that despite the passage of item, very little progress has been made towards the conduct of the case as a result of the tardy attitude of the prosecution. On the basis of the allegations made in the petition, a report was called for by this Court from the Special Judge before whom the proceedings were pending and the said report dated 17th July, 1990, is on the filed of the case. It has been clearly stated therein that the case was not proceeding because of the fault of the prosecution. After the receipt of the report, the proceedings before the Special Judge were stayed vide order of this Court dated 8th October, 1990.

I have gone through the case with the help of the counsel for the parties. Mr. J.K. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has argued that there has been no substantial progress in the case despite the fact that proceedings against the petitioner have gone on for almost 22 years i.e. from 13th February, 1969 when the initial report was lodged with the police, which initiated an investigation into the matter. In his argument he has further highlighted that the FIR was lodged in the year 1973, the challan filed in the year 1975 and the charge framed on 13th August 1985, but despite the passage of time nothing substantial has been done and only about 20 witnesses whose evidenced was of a formal nature, have been examined. He has alleged that the delay in the conduct of the case has been occasioned due toe the fault of the prosecution. He has drawn my attention to sub paras (x) and (xi) of para 5 of the petition and the reply filed thereto in which the question of the conduct of the prosecution of the case has been set out. It has been mentioned in the petition that about 10 witnesses were cited by the prosecution, including some senior employees of the State Bank of Patiala, who are the material witnesses. It has also been stated that till 30.5.1990 only twenty witnesses whose evidence was of a formal nature had been examined and none of the witnesses who were concerned with the management or account of he Bank has been examined so far. It has also been stated that on several occasions the case had to be adjourned as the prosecution witnesses had not brought the relevant record and almost on a dozen occasions the public prosecutor was not present. It has further been pointed out that indifference of the prosecution agency in the conduct of the case was writ large as the Special Judge had to write letters to the Director Central Bureau of Investigation and the Superintendent of Police of that agency, pointing out that the prosecutor was not present nor the record produced. Some of the letters written by the special Judge of the above effect have been specifically referred to tin the petition. In the reply filed on behalf of the prosecution, the averments made in the petition have been broadly admitted and efforts have been made to justify the delay in the prosecution. I have also examined the matter independently on the basis of the orders passed by the Special Judge from 11th April, 1975 to 29th October, 1990. A compendium of the various orders made by the trial Court has been provided to the Court by the counsel for the respondent. It appears to me that the delay in the conduct of the case has occurred primarily due to the fault of the prosecution as the case had been gone adjourned time and again by it on one ground or the other Mr. Sibal has provided a charit indicating some of the court proceedings from 3.(sic). 1985 to 27.9.1990. There were a total of about 105 court hearing during this period. Out of these, 11 adjournments were occasioned due to the lapse on the part of the accused, 36 due to the prosecution and amongst the approximately 55 so called effective hearings, some were adjourned due the absence of the Presiding Judge or the nonavailability of the record. By way of elucidation, it may be stated that after 13th August, 1985 that is the date on which charge was framed there have been 43 hearings in the case and on atleast twenty occasions the matter could not be proceeded with on account of the failure of the prosecution to either produce its witnesses or the other evidence, whereas during this period the accused were guilty of securing only four adjournments. As a matter of fact if one has to go backward in pint of time it could be seen form the various orders that it is the prosecution which has seriously defaulted. It needs to be highlighted that the Special Judge on a number of occasions had to write to the concerned officers of the CBI to depute some officer to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution. The report of the Special Judge dated 17th July, 1990, alluded to above is also relevant as he, too, on an examination of the matter fund that the prosecution was at fault for the delay in the conduct of the case. I am quite conscious of the fact that as the allegations against the petitioners are of a serious nature, this Court would be hesitant to quash the proceedings and let the culprits go scot free but I feel that to let the matter proceed further would prolong the agony of the petitioners beyond endurance. It is more than two decades since the matter was initiated and there appears to be no possibility of a early end to the trial. Three of the coaccused of the petitioners have died during the pendency of the case and this fact too would weigh against the prosecution. Mr. Sibal has cited various judgments in order to show that the delayed trial should not be allowed and the proceedings should be quashed. He has placed special reliance on Govind Ram v. State of Haryana and another, 1988 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 148 ; Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Patna 324; J.C. Goel v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 467 : 1989(2) Chandigarh Law Reports 519 and Pal Chander v. State of Punjab, 1984(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 423 : 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 248 . In Madheshwardhari Singh''s case (supra) the Full Bench of the Patna High Court has observed that the right to a speedy trial is one of the facets of Articles 21 of the Constitution and that this right is applicable not only to the proceedings before Court but also to the Police investigation proceedings it. In the above mentioned case the prosecution had gone on for abut 20 years and the proceedings were accordingly quashed. Nearer home I find that in Govind Ram''s case (supra), the proceedings were quashed by this Court where only seven adjournments had been granted to the prosecution to produce and examine its witnesses and no cogent reason had been assigned for their nonexamination. It may be reiterated that while the investigation in the case commenced in 1969, the formal FIR registered in 1973, the challan filed in 1975, and the charge framed in 1975, the trial is nowhere near completion. The police investigation and the prosecuting agency extremely tardy and the attitude of the prosecuting agency extremely indifferent. I need not dilate on this matter any further as there is no doubt in my mind that there is a vexatious and unjustified delay in the conduct of the prosecution and for the reason these proceedings need to be quashed.

For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed, the FIR Annexure P1 and the charge framed thereafter vide Annexure P2 are quashed.