Judgment:
ORDER
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.
1. The revisional case which arises out of an application under Sections 401 and 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed in order to quash the Special Court Case No. 3 of 1996 pending before the Ld. Judge, 3rd Special Court, Barasat and arising out of G. R. Case No. 42 of 82 being Gosaba P. S. Case No. 5/81, dated 9-12-1981.
2. The case of the petitioner in short is that on 9-12-1981 while he was acting as the Clerk-in-Charge of the office of J.L.R.O. at Gosaba, an F.I.R. was lodged by the concerned J.L.R.O. on the ground that there was a shortage of cash to the extent of Rs. 5065.76 which was being handled by the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently surrendered on 4-5-1987 and was enlarged on bail. The charge-sheet was submitted on 10-11-1987. Thereafter, there were so many adjournments and ultimately on 14-6-1996 copies of charge-sheet and other documents excepting voluminous documents were supplied to the accused-petitioner. Earlier the petitioner was suspended in May, 1982 and the departmental proceeding which was started against him is also pending. The trial of the case is yet to begin. Since the submission of charge-sheet at least 32 adjournments have been granted but no effective steps were taken towards the trial of the case.
3. It is alleged that the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution, namely, speedy and expeditious trial has been denied to the petitioner for no fault of him. It is alleged that the protracted trial has violated the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution and in accordance with the decisions of several High Courts of India as also the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged and the proceeding against him should be quashed. It is alleged that in spite of submission of charge-sheet on 10-11-1987 there was no taking of cognizance by the Ld. S.D.J.M. concerned even though he directed the copies to be supplied to the petitioner.
3A. I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate representing the petitioner as also the Ld. Advocate for the State.
4. The factual aspect of the case is not disputed. Even then it is worthwhile to mention some salient features. The P. S. Case was started on 9-12-1981. The charge-sheet was submitted on 10-12-1987 and as per the certified copy of the order sheet of the G.R. Case, the charge-sheet was placed before the Ld. S.D.J.M. concerned on 20-5-1988. The relevant order runs as follows:- 'received charge-sheet under Section 409, I.P.C. against accused Subrata Chakroborty for his trial. Accused is on bail and absent on petition. Surety must produce the accused on the next date. To 12-9-1988 for copy'. As per the averment of the revisional application which have noted the different dates of adjournments along with the purpose for such adjournments, copies were supplied to the accused-petitioner on 14-6-1996.
5. Therefore, the aforesaid narration shows that it took exactly six years to submit a charge-sheet. The Ld. S.D.J.M. did not take cognizance of the offence in spite of the charge-sheet being placed before him but at the same time, he directed copies to be supplied to the accused-petitioner by order dated 20-5-1988. Copies were not ready till 27-5-1996 as the narration given in the revisional application shows but copies were ready and delivered only on 14-6-1996. Therefore, it took just eight years to supply the copy of charge-sheet and other relevant documents excepting voluminous documents to be supplied to the accused-petitioner. Earlier the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27-5-1982 and the departmental proceeding started pursuant to that is still pending.
6. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the State does not dispute any of the facts stated by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner and mentioned earlier. He also concedes that cognizance was not taken either by the Ld. S.D.J.M. concerned or by the Ld. Judge, Special Court. In fact, the Ld. Advocate for the State has got no word to support the prosecution and as a matter of fact be in his usual fairness did not try to shield the prosecuting machinery for the gross omission committed by them resulting in this long drawn trial affair which has practically made a mockery of justice. It cannot be said that the petitioner in any way is a party to the omission. It is surprising that investigation could not be completed earlier than six years and it is all the more surprising that it took long eight years to make the copies ready for supply to the accused-petitioners. At no stage of the proceeding either before the S.D.J.M. or before the Special Court cognizance of the offence has been taken as yet. Although, I find from the record of the Special Court that a date has been fixed for consideration of charges. It is surprising that in spite of the delay already caused in the way of speedy trial, the Ld. Judge, 3rd Special Court, Barasat who actually received the record on 26-6-1996 could not fix a date earlier than 20-12-1996 for consideration of charge.
7. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner relied on a number of decisions of this Court about the implication of Article 21 of the Constitution and the need of speedy and expeditious trial. The principle of law is well-know even then the cases cited at the Bar need be mentioned. The cases cited by the Ld. Advocate are 1991 Cal Cri L R 55, 1991 Cal Cri L R 365, 1986 Cal Cri L R (SC) 199 and lastly : 1992CriLJ2717 .
8. After giving my careful consideration to this aforesaid narration, I come to the conclusion that it is a fit case in which inherent power vested in this Court need be exercised since even after a lapse of about 15 years trial of the case could not be started for no fault of the petitioner and the laches must be shared by the investigating machinery as also the Subordinate Courts entrusted with the duty of supplying copy to the accused-petitioner. It may also be mentioned that apart from the aforesaid fact, there cannot be continuation of the trial since without taking cognizance of the offence steps were taken to supply copies to the accused-petitioner as also fixing the date for consideration of charge. It is a gross case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and as such the continuance of trial shall be an abuse of process of the Court.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered that the criminal revision stands allowed on contest. The relevant special case being No. 3 of 1996 pending before the Ld. Judge, 3rd Special Court, Barasat stands quashed. In the result, the petitioner Stands discharged from his bail bond.