Ramesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - artical 21 and criminal procedure code--sections 173 & 208 and rajasthan police rules, 1965--rule 8.17--seven years in getting documents submitted under section 173--held displeasure of court is recorded--trial not closed but only 6 material witnesses to be examined--evidence of remaining witnesses be led by affidavits if liked.;almost seven years were wasted in getting the copies of documents submitted under section 173 to the accused. this court records its displeasure or disapproval on the callous attitude of the court in complying with mandatory provisions of section 208 cr. p.c. and of the investigator and prosecutor in discharging their duties in rule 8.17 of the rajasthan police rules, 1965.;looking to the fact that in case charges are framed against the accused only six material witnesses would be there to be examined by the prosecution at the trial as the evidence to be led by the remaining four formal witnesses could be had through their affidavits, if liked to be filed by the prosecution - - 8, 1988 when he checked his iron safe kept in his residential house at village choli udai he found the gold and silver ornaments which were kept in the safe, missing therefrom. on making inquiries he came to know from his somewhat mentally weak son, megh raj that the petitioner and brij mohan co-accused by making false representation to megh raj of getting employment in railways for him, dishonestly and fraudulently induced him to deliver the gold and silver ornaments worth about rs. however, looking to the fact that in case charges are framed against the accused, only six material witnesses would be there to be examined by the prosecution at the trial as the evidence to be led by the remaining four formal witnesses could be had through their affidavits, if liked to be filed by the prosecution this court does not intend to close the trial and quash the proceedings.m.a.a. khan, j.1. on nov. 16, 1988 munshi informant lodged a written first information report with police station vazeerpur distt. sawai madhopur alleging therein that on nov. 8, 1988 when he checked his iron safe kept in his residential house at village choli udai he found the gold and silver ornaments which were kept in the safe, missing therefrom. on making inquiries he came to know from his somewhat mentally weak son, megh raj that the petitioner and brij mohan co-accused by making false representation to megh raj of getting employment in railways for him, dishonestly and fraudulently induced him to deliver the gold and silver ornaments worth about rs. 35,000/-to them crime no. 124/88 was registered by the police and after investigation a police report for offences u/ss 454, 380, 406, 420 read with section 120b i.p.c. was submitted on 24.4.89 in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, gangapur city, against the present petitioners and the aforesaid brij mohan. 2. alongwith the police report only one set of the copies of the documents submitted therewith, had been filed. since then copies of the aforesaid documents have not been supplied to the remaining two accused, as required by section 208 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. hence this petition under section 482 cr. p.c. for quashing the criminal proceedings in the case on the ground of infringement of petitioner fundamental right for speedy trial under article 21 of the constitution.3. i heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record of proceedings of the lower court. the record of proceedings held on 7.10.96 reveals that copies of the documents under section 173 were delivered under section 208 cr. p.c. to all the accused and the case was adjourned for 2.1.1997 for hearing the parties on charge.4. it is no doubt true that the right of an accused to speedy trial has since been recognized as a part of his fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution and therefore the sword of damocles should not be kept hanging on his head for indefinite period. speedy trial leads to delivery of speedy justice to the parties and is therefore necessary for inculcating their faith in the system of dispensation of justice and in the rule of law.5. in the instant case almost seven years were wasted in getting the copies of documents submitted under section 173 to the accused. this court records its displeasure or disapproval on the callous attitude of the court in complying with mandatory provisions of section 208 cr. p.c. and of the investigator and prosecutor in discharging their duties in rule 8.17 of the rajasthan police rules, 1965. had this court not noticed that the mandate contained in section 208 cr. p.c. and in rule 8.17 of the rajasthan police rules, 1965 has since been complied with, it would have certainly thought of quashing the proceedings against the accused in this case. however, looking to the fact that in case charges are framed against the accused, only six material witnesses would be there to be examined by the prosecution at the trial as the evidence to be led by the remaining four formal witnesses could be had through their affidavits, if liked to be filed by the prosecution this court does not intend to close the trial and quash the proceedings.6. in view of the above this petition is dismissed with the observations that on the date fixed by it the trial court shall hear the parties or charge and then, in case charges are framed against the accused persons or any of them, fix a date of dates for, recording the evidence of first six prosecution witnesses. after framing the charge, the learned magistrate shall consider the desirability of summoning gokal ram, badri and ramhet singh witnesses, whose evidence is purely of formal character. the prosecutor may give them up and in case he does not do so the learned magistrate may ask him to lead their evidence through affidavits under section 295/296 cr. p.c. in case the prosecutor fails to produce their affidavits by the next date of hearing the learned magistrate may close their evidence and may examine laxman prasad, investigating officer, if produced on that date. in case laxman prasad i.o. is not produced on that date, the learned magistrate may give one more opportunity to produce him and if on the adjourned date he is not produced, the magistrate may close his evidence too as neither the recovery of any property nor identification of person or property is to be proved in the case. the learned magistrate is expected to dispose of this case within three months failing which a report of the progress of the case and causes for non disposal shall be submitted to this court for appropriate action and orders against the defaulting and delinquent officer/officials.