SARIT KUMAR BOSE v. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH — 1983 DIGILAW 972 (ALL)

K. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 811 of 1977, State v. S. K. Bose, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Allahahad. ( 2 ) THE applicant is an accused in Criminal Case No. 811 of 1977, under Sections 420/409/467/468 Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The facts, briefly stated, are that from September 1961 to May 1966 the applicant was posted as Cashier in the Accounts Department of the High Court. A report under Sections 420/409/467/468 Indian Penal Code was lodged on January 11, 1971 at police station Cannington, Allahabad, by the Registrar, High Court, Allahabad against the applicant. The allegations made in the report were that in First Appeal No. 385 of 1962, Swami Parmatma Nand v. Ramji Tripathi alias Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati. Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati pledged twenty National Defence Certificates Nos. G/o 315038 to G/o 315057 for Rs 5000/- each, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the Registrar of the High Court in or about March 1964. These Certificates were kept in the Ragistrars safe on 24. 3. 1964. An entry about this fact was wade in a register maintained in the office of the Registrar. In April 1965, the counsel for Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati made a request for renewal of the Certificates at an enhanced rate of interest. Consequently, these Certificates were taken out of the safe on 23rd April, 1965, and handed over to S. K. Bose, Cashier, for renewal along with letter No. 5696 dated 11th April, 1965. By this letter, the Post Master. Allahabad, was asked to renew those Certificates at the new rate and also to pledge them in the name of the Registrar after conversion. ( 3 ) ON 26. 12. 1970, the Post Master, Allahabad, informed the High Court that in pursuance of letter No. 7139 dated 18th May, 1965, from the Registrar fifteen National Defence Certificates were discharged on 19th May, 1965, and Sarvasri R. Das Dubey, Shanta Nand Saraswati, and Raghunandan Das made two purchase applications; one for Rs. 25000/and another for Rs. 12. 1970, the Post Master, Allahabad, informed the High Court that in pursuance of letter No. 7139 dated 18th May, 1965, from the Registrar fifteen National Defence Certificates were discharged on 19th May, 1965, and Sarvasri R. Das Dubey, Shanta Nand Saraswati, and Raghunandan Das made two purchase applications; one for Rs. 25000/and another for Rs. 50,000/- on 19th May, 1965, through an authorised agent of Small Savings, that the new certificates were not pledged to the Registrar of the High Court and they were delivered to the aforesaid agent on the same date. The Post Master, Allahabad, further informed that National Defence Certificate No. G/o 315053 was discharged on 19th November, 1966, in pursuance of the letter dated 18th November, 1966, and its amount was paid to S. K. Bose. National Defence Certificate No. G/o 315054 was discharged on 14th November, 1967, in pursuance of Registrars letter dated 8th November, 1967, and its amount was also paid to S. K. nose. Similarly, the payment of National Defence Certificate No. G/o 315055 was made to S. K. Bose on 6. 5. 1966. The Post Master Allahabad, also informed the Registrar that the payment of National Defence. Certificate No. G/o 315056 had been made but was unable to intimate the name of the person to whom that was done. The only other National Defence Certificate that remained was G/o 315057, about which the High Court advised the Post Master, Allahabad, not to make the payment. ( 4 ) THE complaint was that S. K. Bose did not deposit the amount of the Certificates encashed by him in the account of the Court and also did not return the National Defence Certificate No. G/o 315057 to the Registrar. It was alleged that in collusion with some persons, S. K. Bose had committed forgery, criminal misappropriation, and embezzlement. ( 5 ) AFTER the first information report, S. K. Bose was suspended from service on 22nd May, 1971, and, thereafter, arrested on 13th July, 1971. After investigation , charge-sheet was submitted on 6th March, 1975. Copies of the documents were given to the applicant under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code on 12. 9. 1977. Thereafter, the statement of the applicant under Section 239 was taken and charges were framed on 15. 10. 1979. The prosecution produced Lalji Sahai as P. W. 1 on 31st October, 1981. Copies of the documents were given to the applicant under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code on 12. 9. 1977. Thereafter, the statement of the applicant under Section 239 was taken and charges were framed on 15. 10. 1979. The prosecution produced Lalji Sahai as P. W. 1 on 31st October, 1981. But, before his statement could be recorded, the present application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings referred to above, was filed in this Court on 13th March, 1981. ( 6 ) THE basic point for quashing of the proceedings was that as more than seventeen years have passed since the occurrence, the prosecution of the applicant was unjustified and constituted blatant violation of the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order sheet maintained by the court before which the case was pending and submitted that although there: was no stay order passed. by this Court, when the application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code was filed, but still the case did not proceed on account of the prosecution not adducing evidence in support of the charges which were framed against the applicant on 15. 10. 1979. ( 7 ) IN support of the proposition that in case of a long delay proceedings are liable to be quashed, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decisions in Hussain Ara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. State of Maharastra v. Champalal Panajajj2 State of Bihar v. Uma Shankar3 State v. Vishwanath Luguani4 Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam5 U. P. v. D. Shukla6 T. V. Vatheeswaran v. Tamilnadu7 R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab8 and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others. 9 ( 8 ) I have gone through these decisions. It is no doubt true that in some of the cases proceedings have been quashed on the ground of delay, but the present does not appear to be a case where the proceedings pending against the applicant are liable to be quashed on that basis. Some of the adjournments had been taken by the applicant also. However, that is not the ground which has weighed with me in holding that the proceedings are not liable to be quashed. Some of the adjournments had been taken by the applicant also. However, that is not the ground which has weighed with me in holding that the proceedings are not liable to be quashed. The inherent powers given to the High Court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be used sparingly and with circumspection when there is reason to believe that process of law is being misused to harass a citizen (See L. V. Jadhav v. Shankar Rao Aba Sahen Pawar and others10 ). In this case, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not produced the papers despite several opportunities being given, but that will not, in my view, justify the quashing of the proceedings. The ends of justice would be served by giving a directi6n to the Sessions Judge to fix a firm date for the purpose of production of prosecution evidence and to decide the same expeditiously. In case evidence is not produced, the applicant might become entitled to acquittal but I am not satisfied on the materials placed before me that the present is a fit case for exercising inherent powers and quashing the proceedings. ( 9 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that protraction itself means considerable harassment to the accused not only monetarily, but also by way of constant attention to the case and repeated appearances in court. It cannot be denied or rebutted, but while applying the principle of quashing the proceedings of a case on the ground of delay, each case bas to be examined on its own facts. The charges against the applicant were of a serious nature which he is alleged to have committed as an official of the State. I do not have the least intention while saying so that the applicant should be held responsible for the same despite the fact that no evidence is forthcoming, but confidence of the litigant public would be shaken in case money taken out of the custody kept with the Registrar of the High Court is permitted to be embezzled. ( 10 ) THE cases relied upon by the applicants learned counsel are distinguishable on facts. Each one of them represented its own problems. I do not consider it necessary to deal with the same separately. ( 10 ) THE cases relied upon by the applicants learned counsel are distinguishable on facts. Each one of them represented its own problems. I do not consider it necessary to deal with the same separately. Suffice it to say that without disputing the principles laid down therein, I do not consider the present to be a fit case on facts for quashing of the proceedings. ( 11 ) IT appears that last time when this case came up for hearing before Hon. P. N. Harkauli, J. the argument made before him by the counsel for the applicant was that there was no evidence to show that the National Defence Certificates of the value of Rs. 75,000/ was given to the applicant for renewal and pledging, hence the applicant could not possibly be convicted in respect of that amount. His submission further was that the investigation had collected no evidence to show thit the applicant encashed the National Defence Certificates relating to the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/ -. On the grounds stated above, the applicant submitted that permitting the prosecution to proceed after a lapse of so much of time when the documents and witnesses, whose evidence would be relevant at the trial have disappeared, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 12 ) TO judge the merits of the aforesaid contentions, the learned Judge had directed the case diary to be produced before him. However, the case was later on released by Hon. P. N. Harkauli, J. , and it has come before me with the case diary. With no intention to cause prejudice to the applicant, I consider it sufficient at this stage to observe that a perusal of the case diary does not make it possible for me to exercise the power conferred by Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 13 ) FOR what have said above, I do not find any merit in this application and reject the same. But, in the circumstances, I consider it essential in the ends of justice to direct the District Judge,allahabad, to allot this case to a court which expeditiously disposes it of. The court is directed to fix a firm date and to call upon the prosecution to adduce evidence. Application rejected. .