JUDGMENT
R.N. Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner at the material time was Deputy Manager Incharge stores, Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Dhurwa, It appears that on 14-3-1985 one Tarkeshwar Pd. Singh who at the relevant time was Supervisor of Prince Electricals, Ancillary Industrial Area, Hatia appeared before superintendent of Police, C. B. I. and submitted a petition that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from him for supplying materials. The S. P., C.B.I, after completing official formalities constituted a trap party. On 15-3-1985 the members of the trap party assembled at the works site of the M/s. Prince Electricals to watch and see the activities of the petitioner in connection with the demand of gratification. The petitioner was caught by the traping party with Rs. 2,500. A case being R.C. No. 2 of 1985 dated 15-3-1985 was registered against the petitioner which is pending in the court of the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay. As stated earlier a case was registered on 15-3-1985, the petitioner was arrested and was suspended on the same date from his service. According to the petitioner, charge-sheet had been signed by the C. B. I. on 31-10-1985, This fact has been disputed (sic). It was stated that till date no police papers has not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged his suspension in C.W.J.C. No. 431 of 1992 (R) which was disposed of on 11-3-1992 by a Bench of this Hon’ble Court comprising the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narayan Roy. Their Lordships quashed the suspension order and made certain observation against the C. B. I. which read thus:
This is a case of the most human manner in which a person is being treated by his employer and also by the prosecutor. This relates to a C. B. I. case on the basis of which a criminal case was lodged in the year 1985 against the petitioner i.e. about seven years back. The charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1986. Pursuant to our order dated 10th of March, 1992, the orders-sheet in respect of this case being Crime No. 2 of 1985 State v. G.C. Agrawal, was brought before us. We find from the same that though the petitioner has been regularly appearing from the year 1986, the matter is being adjourned from time to time for non-supply of the police papers. Curiously enough, the learned Counsel appearing for C. B. I. states that the recording in the order-sheet is wrong and that the police papers were submitted to the petitioner. We are not willing to accept any such statement from the Bar which is against the order appearing from the order-sheet itself. We cannot allow any oral submission to be made which goes against the order-sheet. If the contention made on behalf of the C. B. 1. is correct then steps would have been taken for correcting the order-sheet which has not been done. The fact remains that no progress has been made for the last six years, though the charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 1986.
In that view of the matter, we give liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate proceeding for quashing the criminal case because, in our opinion, it is a tit and proper case whore the court should interefere because of such delay.
However, as we are concerned with only the order of suggestion in the present petition, we pass the following order. The suspension order is setaside. However, the respondent-Corporation shall be entitled to pass such order as it think fit commensurate with this position by alloting him work anywhere and not at Ranchi.
As we have already stated, this will not prevent the petitioner for filing any proceeding for quashing the criminal case.
It is a pity that such a contention is sought to be raised by the C. B. I. through its lawyer without making any application before the court to the effect that the recording in the order-sheet was incorrect. There is no explanation why though the charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1986 but the police papers have not be supplied and the case has not been disposed of as yet.
Let a copy of this order be sent by the Joint Registrar, Ranchi to the C. B. I, authorities at Delhi and the Senior most officer of C. B. I. in Bihar for taking necessary action.
This application is disposed or accordingly.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the C. B. I. the following facts has been placed.
(A) The paper was supplied to the petitioner on 16-1-1986 but later the petitioner pointed out that some of the documents were not given to him.
(B) The trial of the case of the petitioner is in progress, on 13-4-1992 one witness has been examined by the court below. On 27-4-1992 two witnesses were summoned to appear for these evidence, on 1-5-1992 one witness was present in this case for his evidence but since this Court stayed proceeding of the court below on 4-5-1992 the case of the petitioner is pending for further evidence of the witness.
3. Mr. Shakil Ahmad learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on AIR 1978 SC 597, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , Hussainare Khattoon v. State of Bihar , which was partly approved by the Supreme Court in Antulay case (supra). The Honb’le Supreme Court after reviewed all the previous decisions on the subject laid down guideline in Para 54 of the report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia laid down the following propositions:
(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possibly in the circumstances.
(2) Right to speedy trial following from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view.
4. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Counsel for the C. B. I. relied on the certain passage of this judgment and fairly stated only four witnesses are proposed to be examined on behalf of the C. B. I. In the counter affidavit filed by the C. B. I. there is no explanation for inordinate delay in completing the trial although charge-sheet was submitted as far back January, 1986. C. B. I. has not blamed the petitioner for the inordinate delay. In fact there is no material to hold that the petitioner is responsible in any manner, This fact was considered by the Division in the passage quoted. It categorically held that the petitioner was present each and every date of the case. It is very sorry state of affairs that C. B. I. was not even able to supply police papers for six years. It is suprising that even after the observation by this Court no sincere efforts was made for expeditious disposal of the case. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Counsel for the C. B.I. submitted that further time be granted to the court to dispose of the trial. I am not pursuaded to accept the submission made by the counsel because there was no justification for the inordinate delay in the dispose of the case. In my opinion it is a fit case in which the entire proceeding it R.C. case No. 2/85 pending in the court of Special Judge (C.B.I.) be quashed in exercise of inherent power of the Court.
5. In the result this application is allowed and entire criminal proceeding pending in the court of Special Judge is quashed.
