At the very inception , I would like to begin by pointing out that the Supreme Court has given a landmark ruling in the case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. State of Maharashtra . I too had the privilege of going through this landmark judgment in the journal “Supreme Today” and the citation is 2013 ( 2 ) Supreme 385 . To begin with , the important point highlighted in this ruling by the Supreme Court is as pointed out in page 386 of the citation that , “The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act . Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics .”
It is also noteworthy to mention here as pointed out in page 385 of the citation that , “This case relates to the effect of delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings under P.C. Act on service prospects and retiral benefits .” Also , the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice KS Radhakrishnan in this very case again as mentioned in page 385 of the citation very rightly pointed out about right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution that , “No time limit can be stipulated for disposal of the criminal trial . It is not possible to lay down a time schedule for conclusion of criminal trial . It depends upon many factors including delay caused by the accused persons . Denial of right to fair trial prejudices accused in his defence . Not so in denial of right to speedy trial . Delay occurring due to dilatory tactics adopted by the accused , laxity on the part of the prosecution and faults on the part of the system . Asking for adjournment is not a legal right . Similarly filing applications is not an unexceptional right .”
In this landmark ruling , the Supreme Court has come down heavily on those indulging in corruption and has minced no words to state unequivocally that the accused will have to suffer if he adopts deliberately dilatory tactics to avoid punishment and also made it clear that quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act . I am sure that from now onwards not only all the lower courts but even the Supreme Court itself will continue to maintain this laudable position and will not disembark from it in the near future . If corruption has to be reigned in , there has to be no tolerance not even zero for corrupt practices and those still daring to indulge in it must be made to face the consequences and not be allowed to escape on one pretext or the other .
For my readers benefit , I must point out here that it is very rightly mentioned in para 1 of this citation as stated above that , “The gravamen of grievance of the petitioners in this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to procrastination in trial , gradual corrosion of their social reputation , deprivation of respectable livelihood because of order of suspension passed against the petitioner No. 1 during which he was getting a meagre subsistence allowance and has reached the age of superannuation without being considered for promotion , extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and strain , and denial of speedy trial that has impaired their Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution . The asseverations pertaining to long delay in trial have been made on the constitutional backdrop leading to the prayer for quashment of the proceedings of Special Case No. 4 of 1993 pending in the court of learned Special Judge , Greater Bombay .”
I must also point out here that in this citation as stated above , the Supreme Court made it clear in para 2 that , “Before we proceed to state the factual score , it is necessary to mention that this is not the first time that the petitioners have approached this Court . They , along with others , had assailed the order of the High Court of Bombay declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and others on the ground of delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet in three special leave petitions which were converted to three criminal appeals , namely , Criminal Appeal Nos. 176 of 2001 , 177 of 2001 and 178 of 2001 . This Court adverted to the facts and expressed the view that there was no justification to quash the criminal prosecution on the ground of delay highlighted by the appellants in all the appeals . However , this Court took note of the allegations against two senescent ladies who were octogenarians relating to their abetment in the commission of the crime and opined that the materials were insufficient to prove that the old ladies intentionally abetted the public servant in acquiring assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and further it would be unfair and unreasonable to compel them , who by advancement of old age , would possibly have already crossed into geriatric stage , to stand the long trial having no reasonable prospect of ultimate conviction against them and , accordingly , on those two grounds , allowed the appeals preferred by them and quashed the criminal prosecution as far as they were concerned . The other appeals , preferred by the public servant and his wife , stood dismissed .” The bench of Apex Court also made it clear in para 3 that , “Be it noted , in the said judgment , while quashing the proceedings against the two ladies , this Court referred to the decision in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar [ ( 1998 ) 7 SCC 507 ] and observed that the trial was not likely to end within one or two years , even if the special court would strictly adhere to the directions issued by this Court in Rajdeo Sharma’s case” .
To understand more the facts of this landmark case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. State of Maharashtra 2013 ( 2 ) Supreme 385 , it would be pertinent to read carefully para 4 of the judgment of this case as narrated on page 387 which clearly states that , “The facts as uncurtained are that the Anti Corruption Bureau ( ACB ) , after conducting a preliminary enquiry , filed an FIR on 26.6.1986 against the petitioner No. 1 who was a Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Prohibition and Excise , Maharashtra Government , for offence punishable under Section 5 ( 2 ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947 . The lodgement of the FIR led to conducting of raids at various places and , eventually , it was found that the petitioner , a public servant , had acquired assets worth Rs. 33.44 lakhs which were in excess of his known sources of income . After the investigation , the Government of Maharashtra was moved for grant of sanction which was accorded on 22.1.1993 and thereupon , the chargesheet was lodged against the petitioners along with two old ladies on 4.3.1993 before the Special Court . The offence alleged against the petitioner , the public servant , was under Section 13 ( 2 ) read with Section 13 ( 1 ) ( e ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 . Allegations against the ladies were abetment for the main offences . As there was delay in conducting the investigation and filing of charge-sheet and disposal of certain interlocutory applications , the High court of Bombay was moved on 15.4.1997 for quashing of the criminal proceedings . As has been stated earlier , the High Court declined to interfere and , hence , all the accused persons approached this Court in appeal , wherein the criminal case in respect of the old ladies was delinked and quashed .”
The contention of accused which he forwarded as his defence has been explained by the Supreme Court in para 5 of the citation as stated above in page 387 and page 388 wherein it is stated that , “It is asserted in this petition that after this Court disposed of the earlier criminal appeals , charges were framed only on 15.12.2007 nearly after expiry of seven years . It is put forth that during the pendency of the trial , the wife of the petitioner No. 1 has breathed her last on 23.5.2008 . It is averred that nearly after four years of framing of charges , on 1.2.2011 , Shri Vasant S. Shete , the Investigating Officer , was partly examined by the prosecution and , thereafter , the matter was adjourned on many an occasion . Despite the last opportunity being granted by the learned Special Judge , the Investigating Officer was not produced for examination . As pleaded , the Investigating Officer appeared before the Special Judge on 20.7.2011 and sought further time instead of getting himself examined . Thereafter , the matter was adjourned on 25.8.2011 , 21.9.2011 and 18.10.2011 and the examination of the Investigating Officer could not take place . On 15.11.2011 , the Investigating Officer submitted a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police , ACB , stating that he had already taken voluntary retirement and due to bad health was unable to attend the court and follow up the case . He made a request to the ACP to appoint some other officer for prosecuting the case . Thereafter , the Investigating Officer absented himself before the learned trial judge to give his evidence . It is contended that because of the said situation , the examination – in – chief of PW – 1 has not yet been completed and the other witnesses have not been produced for examination by the prosecution . It is urged that despite prayer made by the petitioner that the prosecution case ought to be closed because of its inability to produce the witnesses , the learned Special Judge has not closed the evidence . It is urged that more than ten years have elapsed since the earlier judgment of this Court was rendered and , therefore , the whole proceeding deserved to be quashed . Emphasis has been laid on the loss of reputation , mental suffering , stress and anxiety and the gross violation of the concept of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution” .
The Supreme Court in its judgment in this case also made the stand of the State of Maharashtra clear in para 6 and para 7 of the citation cited above . It is mentioned in para 6 in page 388 that , “The stand of the State of Maharashtra , respondent No. 1 , is that after delivery of the judgment in the earlier appeals , the accused on 29.3.2001 moved numerous miscellaneous applications seeking various reliefs and made a prayer that framing of charges should be deferred till all the miscellaneous applications were decided . He moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction and though the High court did not grant stay , yet the case was adjourned at the instance of the accused . On number of occasions , the accused himself moved applications for adjournment and some times sought adjournment to go out of the country to Bangkok , Thailand and Singapore” . Para 7 also in page 388 further states that , “Even after the trial commenced , the accused did not cooperate and remained non – responsive . A chart has been filed showing the manner in which adjournments were taken by the accused at the stage of framing of charge on the ground that the matter was pending before the High Court . A reference has been made to the order dated 30.1.2003 directing all the accused to remain present on the next date of hearing , i.e. , 07.2.2003 , for framing of charge . Reference has been made to the orders passed wherefrom it is clear that the accused persons had sought adjournment on the ground that writ petitions were pending before the High Court . It is also put forth that certain applications were filed by the accused persons seeking longer date by giving personal reasons and sometimes on the ground of non-availability of the counsel . It is the case of the prosecution that because of adjournments , the charges could not be framed within a reasonable time but ultimately , on 15.12.2007 , the charges were framed .The factual narration would further reveal that certain miscellaneous applications were filed and they were ultimately dismissed on 20.2.2008 . On 04.4.2009 , an order was passed requiring the counsel for the accused to submit admission and denial of the documents as per the description mentioned in the aplication under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Some time was consumed to carry out the said exercise . The matter was also adjourned as PW 1 had undergone an operation . On 26.8.2012 , the trial court recorded that the witness , Shetye , was unable to attend the Court and on the next date , i.e. , 13.7.2012 , the Prosecution Witness No. 1 stated that he was suffering from mental imbalance and was not in a position to depose and in view of the said situation , the Court directed the prosecution to lead evidence of other witnesses on the next date . Relying on the documents annexed to the counter affidavit , it is contended that on most of the dates , the accused has taken adjournment on some pretext or the other .”
While delivering the judgment in this landmark case cited above , the bench of Apex Court after considering all the facts before it and hearing both the sides concluded in para 21 of the citation cited above on page 394 that , “It is perceivable that delay has occurred due to dilatory tactics adopted by the accused , laxity on the part of the prosecution and faults on the part of the system , i.e. , to keep the court vacant . It is also interesting to note that though there was no order directing stay of the proceedings before the trial court , yet at the instance of the accused , adjournments were sought . After the High Court clarified the position , the accused , by exhibition of inherent proclivity , sought adjournments and filed miscellaneous applications for prolonging the trial , possibly harbouring the notion that asking for adjournment is a right of the accused and filing applications is his unexceptional legal right . When we say so , we may not be understood to have said that the accused is debarred in law to file applications , but when delay is caused on the said score , he cannot advance a plea that the delay in trial has caused colossal hardship and agony warranting quashment of the entire criminal proceeding . In the present case , as has been stated earlier , the accused , as alleged , had acquired assets worth Rs. 33.44 lacs . The value of the said amount at the time of launching of the prosecution has to be kept in mind . It can be stated with absolute assurance that the tendency to abuse the official position has spread like an epidemic and has shown its propensity making the collective to believe that unless bribe is given , the work may not be done . To put it differently , giving bribe , whether in cash or in kind , may become the “mantra” of the people . We may hasten to add , some citizens do protest but the said protest may not inspire others to follow the path of sacredness of boldness and sacrosanctity of courage . Many may try to deviate . This deviation is against the social and national interest . Thus , we are disposed to think that the balance to continue the proceeding against the accused-appellants tilts in favour of the prosecution and , hence , we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings . However , the learned Special Judge is directed to dispose of the trial by the end of December , 2013 positively .”
Having said this , I must also bring out here that the Supreme Court in this very judgment launched a frontal attack on corruption and very rightly so . Corruption has to be eliminated not only root and branch but also its seeds so that it cannot quickly raise its monstrous head again and again very soon as most unfortunately we are seeing right now . The Apex Court in para 20 of the citation cited above minced absolutely no words in stating that , “It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree , for corruption mothers disorder , destroys societal will to progress , accelerates undeserved ambitions , kills the conscience , jettisons the glory of the institutions , paralyses the economic health of a country , corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance . It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty , and history records with agony how they have suffered . The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality . Therefore , the relief for quashing of a trial under the 1988 Act has to be considered in the above backdrop” .
Be it noted , the Apex Court by its judgment in this landmark case has sent a loud and tough message to not only the entire society but also all the lower courts that delay alone cannot be a ground enough to quash the entire proceedings in cases of corruption because if this is allowed in one case , it will soon become a very dangerous trend to be only repeated again and again . Corruption has to be combated and punished irrespective of the quantum of money involved in such cases . Finally on a concluding note , I will cite again from the citation stated above in this landmark case in para 19 which aptly sums up everything in these words of Supreme Court that , “It is to be kept in mind that on one hand , the right of the accused is to have a speedy trial and on the other , the quashment of the indictment or the acquittal or refusal for sending the matter for re – trial has to be weighed , regard being had to the impact of the crime on the society and the confidence of the people in the judicial system . There cannot be a mechanical approach . From the principles laid down in many an authority of this Court , it is clear as crystal that no time limit can be stipulated for disposal of the criminal trial . The delay caused has to be weighed on the factual score , regard being had to the nature of the offence and the concept of social justice and the cry of the collective . In the case at hand , the appellant has been charge sheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 for disproportionate assets . The said Act has a purpose to serve . The Parliament intended to eradicate corruption and provide deterrent punishment when criminal culpability is proven . The intendment of the legislature has an immense social relevance . In the present day scenario , corruption has been treated to have the potentiality of corroding the marrows of the economy . There are cases where the amount is small and in certain cases , it is extremely high . The gravity of the offence in such a case , in our considered opinion , is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe . An attitude to abuse the official position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective and an anathema to the basic tenet of democracy , for it erodes the faith of the people in the system . It creates an incurable concavity in the Rule of Law . Be it noted , system of good governance is founded on collective faith in the institutions . If corrosions are allowed to continue by giving allowance to quash the proceedings in corruption cases solely because of delay without scrutinizing other relevant factors , a time may come when the unscrupulous people would foster and garner the tendency to pave the path of anarchism” .
Sanjeev Sirohi