Case Note & Summary
The case originated from an FIR dated 12 May 1987 alleging criminal conspiracy, falsification of accounts, criminal breach of trust, and corruption in the Udgir Dairy Scheme during March 1981 to July 1982. The petitioners, former government servants holding posts such as Accounts Officer, Stores Officer, Deputy Manager, Store Supervisor, and Store Keeper, were accused of involvement in bogus purchases of spare parts at inflated rates and preparation of false bills, causing a loss of Rs. 2,35,046. The charge sheet was filed on 22 February 1991, and the case remained pending for over nineteen years. The petitioners sought quashing of the prosecution, contending that they were mere ministerial officers, the real beneficiaries had expired, and the prolonged delay violated their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, where a co-accused was discharged on similar grounds. The prosecution opposed the petition, stating that the delay was primarily due to the accused’s frequent absence and their advocates’ non-appearance, and that serious charges of corruption warranted a full trial. The High Court examined the roznama, which revealed that after the charge sheet, the matter was delayed due to non-appearance of accused persons, exemption applications, and limited court unavailability. Applying the guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay’s case, the court held that the accused themselves were largely responsible for the delay, and the prosecution could not be blamed for the trial not progressing. The court observed that the right to speedy trial is not absolute and must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused. Since the allegations involved corruption and financial misdemeanours by public servants, quashing was not justified. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the trial to continue. The judgment reinforces that accused persons cannot take advantage of their own non-cooperation to seek quashing of proceedings on grounds of delay.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21, Constitution of India - Delay in trial of 19 years - Petitioners sought quashing on ground of violation of fundamental right to speedy trial - Court applied guidelines in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701, considering who is responsible for delay, nature of offence, number of accused, workload of court - Held that after charge sheet, delay caused by accused’s non-appearance and exemption applications; prosecution not solely responsible for prolonging trial - Serious allegations of corruption, falsification of accounts, and criminal breach of trust under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - No exceptional circumstances to condone delay - Quashing not justified. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution against the petitioners should be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay in trial, violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that after filing of charge sheet, the delay was largely due to non-appearance of accused and their applications for exemption. The prosecution was not solely responsible. Given the serious nature of the allegations, the petition was rejected.
Law Points
- right to speedy trial under Article 21
- guidelines in A.R. Antulay
- delay attributable to accused
- quashing of criminal proceedings not warranted despite long pendency
- serious allegations of corruption and falsification of accounts
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 122
Criminal Writ Petition No. 811 of 2009
Shri A.G. Godhamgaonkar for petitioners, Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondents
Jagdish Anant Naik, Deorao Vyankatesh Shobhane, Nazir Ahmed Maqbool Bagwan, Jailal Ganeshlal Kasliwal, Sanjeevan Ramrao Ahankari
The State of Maharashtra, The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries, The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Latur, The Commissioner of Dairy Development Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of prosecution pending before Special Judge, Udgir.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (original accused) sought quashing of the criminal case against them.
Filing Reason
Alleged violation of right to speedy trial due to pendency of 19 years; petitioners retired and pension benefits withheld; co-accused discharged by Supreme Court in similar circumstances.
Previous Decisions
Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2008 SC 3077) had discharged accused No. 11 on ground of delay. Trial court on 26.11.2009 refused to discharge present petitioners. Earlier, writ petition No. 149 of 1999 was filed by accused Nos. 11 and 12.
Issues
Whether the prosecution against the petitioners should be quashed due to inordinate delay in trial, violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were only ministerial officers and not beneficiaries; the real offenders had expired; the trial had been pending for 19 years without progress, and there was no stay; co-accused Pankaj Kumar was discharged by Supreme Court on similar grounds; thus the prosecution should be quashed.
Respondents argued that the delay was attributable to the accused themselves, who were absent on 68 dates and their advocates on 25 dates; the prosecution was ready to proceed; serious allegations of conspiracy, falsification of accounts, and corruption were made, and the petitioners should not be discharged.
Ratio Decidendi
While considering quashing of criminal proceedings on ground of delay, the court must examine who is responsible for the delay, the nature of offences, number of accused, workload of court, and other attending circumstances. If the delay is attributable to the accused themselves through non-cooperation or absence, the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not violated. Mere lapse of time does not warrant quashing where serious allegations of corruption exist, and the accused has contributed to the delay. (Paras 12-13)
Judgment Excerpts
It is the case of the present petitioners that for no fault on their part, they have been prosecuted and the prosecution is pending for number of years as a result of which even though they have retired, their pensionery benefits are withheld.
In the case of A.R. Antulay, it is observed that one of the major circumstances to be considered is who is responsible for delay in trial and while determining whether undue delay has occurred, one must have regard to the attending circumstances, including nature of the offences, number of accused and the witnesses, workload on court concerned etc.
Procedural History
FIR recorded on 12.05.1987; charge sheet submitted on 22.02.1991; case registered as Special Case No. 3 of 1991, later renumbered as Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2005; accused Nos. 11 and 12 filed Writ Petition No. 149 of 1999; Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1067 of 2008 discharged accused No. 11; on 26.11.2009 trial court rejected discharge applications of present petitioners; present writ petition filed and decided on 19.01.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 477A, 101, 34
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d), 5(c)
