Judgment:
D.P. Sengupta, J.
1. In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 692 of 1981 arising out of Jagaddal P.S. case No. 21(2) 81 dated 11.2.81 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code now pending in the Cout of learned SDJM, Barrackpore.
2. It appears from the ordersheet of the learned Magistrate's Court that on number of dates till 15.5.85 there was no report in the final form submitted by the Invistigating Officer. The learned Magistrate passed orders on those dates directing the Investigating Officer to expedite the investigation. From the order dated 21.11.85 it appears that the Investigating Officer had submitted a report stating that he had submitted the chargesheet in the case before the learned Public Prosecutor, 24 Parganas. As the offence was triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate waited for order from the learned Sessions Judge for allotment of Special Court on the subsequent dates. On 28.1.88 the learned Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to pursue the matter and produce the case diary and charge sheet submitted by him. But it appears from the subsequent orders passed by the learned Magistrate on different dates that inspite of repeated reminders given by the Court, the Investigating Officer did not take any step for production of the case diary before the learned Magistrate. Even the Investigating Officer did not care to appear before the learned Magistrate inspite of direction. It is really surprising to note that although the learned Magistrate was very much empowered to compel the attendance of the Investigating Officer in Court, the concerned Magistrate became a silent spectator and he simply went on adjourning the matter time to time.
3. It appears from the order dated 30.4.90 that the record was misplaced. The Investigating Officer was directed to appear on 23.5.90. Thereafter from the subsequent orders till 27.12.91 it appears that the case diary including the chargesheet could not be traced out. Thereafter the matter could not proceed in the Court below, because the lower Court records were called for by this Court in connection with Criminal Revision No. 3215 of 1991. On 25.7.95 the LCR was received back by the learned Magistrate. It appears from the order dated 23.3.96 that Investigating Officer was directed to produce the case diary in Court on the next date, i.e. on 11.6.96. He failed to appear as per direction of the Court, but surprisingly the learned Magistrate remained silent and went on adjourning the matter and such granting of adjournment continued till 1.10.99. On 11.11.99 a prayer was made by the accused person for discharge. But such prayer was rejected by the learned Magistrate as he was not empowered to try the case under Section 409 IPC. From the said order it also appears that the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet being No. 175/31.8.85 under Section 409/34 IPC through the learned Public Prosecutor, Alipore although the Investigating Officer was not supposed to submit chargesheet in that manner. The Court Inspector, Barrackpore Court was directed to collect the chargesheet and the C.D from the office of the learned Public Prosecutor, Alipore and to produce the same in Court on 11.12000. Case diary and the C.S. could not be produced on 11.1.2000 and as such a reminder was issued. It appears from the order dated 12.4.2000 that from a letter of communication issued by the learned Public Prosecutor, Alipur that the case diary was sent to the office of the Public Prosecutor, North 24 Parganas on 10.12.92 from the office the learned Public Prosecutor, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. Accordingly the learned Public Prosecutor, North 24 Parganas, Barasat was requested to take necessary steps for immeditate transmission of the case diary to the Court of the learned Magistrate. 19.8.2000 was fixed for production of case diary. But case diary could not be produced on 19.8.2000 and on the said date it was reported before the learned Magistrate that one of the accused persons, namely, Bholanath Das had already expired. Thereafter, as it appears from the order dated 6.4.2001, another accused person, namely, Gour Sadhan Sengupta had also expired.
4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case was registered in February, 1981. Chargesheet was submitted In 1985. But thereafter there was absolutely no progress in the said proceeding as the chargesheet and the case diary was found missing. Copies of documents have not yet been supplied to the accused persons and as such the question of framing the charge does not arise. More than 21 years have elapsed and during this long period the petitioners have suffered from mental agony and anxiety. In such circumstances, it is submitted by the petitioner's learned advocate that the present proceeding should not be allowed to continue any further and the same should be quashed.
5. The learned advocate of the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : 2001CriLJ4718 (Mahendralal Das v. State of Bihar and Ors.). In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Apex court as follows:
'This Court in Abdul Rehaman Anuday v. R.S. Nayak while interpreting the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution held that every citizen has a right to speedy trial of the case pending against him. The speedy trial was considered also public interest as it serves the social interest also. It is in the interest of all concerned that guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. The right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages, namely, stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. While determining the alleged delay, the Court has to decide each case on its facts having regard to all attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the Court concerned, prevailing local conditions etc. Every delay may not be taken as causing prejudice to the accused but the alleged delay has to be considered in the totality of the circumstances and the general conspectus of the case. Inordinate long delay can be taken as a presentive proof of prejudice.'
*****
'In case of corruption the amount involved is not material but speedy justice is the mandate of the Constitution being in the interests of the accused as well as that of the society. Cases relating to corruption are to be dealt with swiftly, promptly and without delay. As and when delay is found to have been caused during the investigation, inquiry or trial, the appropriate authorities concerned are under an obligation to find out and deal with the persons responsible for such delay. The delay can be attributed either to the connivance of the authorities with the accused or used as a lever to pressurise and harass the accused as is alleged to have been done to the appellant in this case. The appellant has submitted that due to registration of the case and pendency of the investigation he lost his chance of promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. It is common knowledge that promotions are withheld when proceedings with respect to allegations of corruption are pending against the incumbent. The appellant has further alleged that he has been deprived of the love, affection and the society of his children who were residing in a foreign country as on account of the pendency of the investigation he could not afford to leave the country.'
'This Court in Ramanand Cahudhary v. State of Bihar quashed the investigation against the accused on account of not granting the sanction for more than 13 years. The facts of the present case are almost identical. No useful purpose would be served to put the appellant at trial at this belated stage.'
'Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to quash the proceedings against the appellant as permitting further prosecution would be a travesty of justice and a mere ritual or formality so far as the prosecution agency is concerned, and unnecessary burden as regards the Courts.'
6. Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that instead of quashing of the proceeding, one more opportunity may be given to the prosecution and the learned Magistrate may be directed to conclude the trial within a specific period.
7. I have heard the learned advocate of the petitioner as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the entire order sheet of the Court below. The case was registered in 1981. Chargesheet was submitted in 1985 before the learned Public Prosecutor, 24 Parganas although the Investigating Officer was not supposed to submit chargesheet in that manner. He was to submit the charge sheet before the Court. It was the Investigating Officer of the case who was solely responsible for such a serious mistake. Thereafter chargesheet and the case diary was found missing and till date it could not be traced out. More than 21 years have elapsed. Till date copies of docuements could not be supplied to the accused and so the question of framing of charge does not arise. Out of 4 accused persons 2 have already died. But the proceeding is still kept pending without any fault of the petitioner.
8. In the circumstances stated above, I am of the view that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. In view of the fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is a fit and proper case where the proceeding should be quashed on this score alone. Considering the mental agony and anxiety suffered by the petitioner for the last 21 years I think that the present proceeding is liable to be quashed.
9. Present revisional application is accordingly allowed. Impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No. 693/81 arising out of Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 21(2) 81 under Section 409/34 IPC no pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Barrackpore is hereby quashed.