Mangilal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan — 1991 DIGILAW 502 (RAJ)

Honble FAROOQ HASAN, J.—Mangilal Vyas, who is petitioner in the above-noted seven petitions, has come up before this Court for quashing criminal proceedings pending against him in criminal cases (numbers of which will be mentioned in last para of this order) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu. 2. Earlier also, the petitioner had filed eight 482 Cr.P.C. petitions before this Court for quashing eight criminal cases (including the present ones) of alleged embezzlement pending against him in the trial Court. These petitions moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. bearing Nos. 702 to 709 of 1986 were dismissed by this Court on 29.1.1987 against which, the petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of S.L.P. which came to be decided on 23.1 90 in Cr Appeal Nos. 522 to 529 of 1987, with the following direction :— "The High Court has directed the trial Court to proceed with the cases against the appellant day to day and decide them expeditiously. We would however direct the trial Court to dispose of the cases with in a period not exceeding one year from the date of the receipt of the records. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Trial Court forthwith." 3. There is no dispute that the matter relates to the embezzlement which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the year 1963 A report of which had been lodged on 29.11.63 and the challan had been filed on 30.1.64. The trial in cr. case No. 2/74 concluded & on 22.5.67, the petitioner was convicted but given benefit of probation which was converted into acquittal of the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 30.3.63 but on 10.9.1971, this Court remanded the case directing the trial Court to call certain documents & dispose of the case expeditiously and against the remand order the petitioner approached the Supreme Court which directed on 11.8 78 for completion of re-trial by day to day hearing in almost all the impugned criminal cases. 4. In Cr. case No. 5/74 (New Nos. 180/86 & 271/86), the occurrence relates to the date 11.8.62 and F.I.R. was lodged on 23.8.67 having come to first knowledge on 30.3.63. In Cr. case No. 6/74 (New No. 181/86 (272/86) date of occurrence is 16.4.62 of which report was lodged on 22.4.68 whereas its first knowledge came in light on 30.3.63. In Cr. case No. 5/74 (New Nos. 180/86 & 271/86), the occurrence relates to the date 11.8.62 and F.I.R. was lodged on 23.8.67 having come to first knowledge on 30.3.63. In Cr. case No. 6/74 (New No. 181/86 (272/86) date of occurrence is 16.4.62 of which report was lodged on 22.4.68 whereas its first knowledge came in light on 30.3.63. In Cr. case No. 9/74 (New No 182/86 (268/86), date of occurrence is 16.4.62 report of which was lodged on 22.4.68 having come to first knowledge on 30.3.63. In Cr. case No. 12/74 (New No. 185/86 (266/86) the incident relates to 16.12.61 having come to first knowledge on 30.3.63 whereas report of which was lodged on 15.5 69 In Cr case No. 11/74 (New No. 184/86 (285/86), the occurrence relates to 16.11.61 whereas it has come to the knowledge firstly on 30.3.63 but its report was lodged on 17.2.69. And, in Cr. case No. 23/74 (New No. 186/86 & 267/86) the alleged date of occurrence is 16.4.62 having come to the knowledge firstly on 30.3.63 but the F.I.R. was filed on 17.2.69. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Much stress was laid by Shri R. S. Rathore, arguing counsel on behalf of the petitioner on contending that despite directions issued twice by the Supreme Court of India, one on 11.8.7.8 & secondly on 23.1.90, the criminal cases in question are still pending before the trial Court. Undoubtedly, the record was received by the trial Court on 7.2.1990 after second direction. Thereafter, on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, the petitioner alongwith his counsel appeared and never sought any adjournment. Shri Rathore voci forcely contended that it was on account of laches and non-compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court of the country that seven criminal cases in question are still pending, inasmuch as outer-limit & ceiling period for disposal of the cases have expired. According to Shri Rathore, the only consequence which must follow is that the proceedings must be quashed and the cases should be terminated. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the cases have been finally heard by the trial Court and are fixed for pronouncing judgments. According to Shri Rathore, the only consequence which must follow is that the proceedings must be quashed and the cases should be terminated. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the cases have been finally heard by the trial Court and are fixed for pronouncing judgments. He submitted that the directions issued by the Supreme Court have fully been complied with and looking to the proceedings, there appears no reason or emergence to quash the proceedings. 8. I have considered the points raised and a glance at the record with the aid of the learned counsel for the parties, as and when required during the course of arguments. 9. It is cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that the directions issued by the Highest Court must be complied with in letter and spirit, otherwise very purpose of the directions will be defeated and moreso, continuance of the proceedings after 8.2.1991 amounts to disrespect of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. 10. One more petition was filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Cr. case No. 3/79 which was also pending against the petitioner before the trial Court and that petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. bearing No. 161/82 was disposed of on 5.12.1985 by which criminal proceedings in Cr. case No. 3/79 were ordered to be quashed in similar circumstances as in the case at hand. 11. There is no dispute that if the trial proceeds for long years and there is no progress in the cases, the accused is not at fault and responsible and, therefore, there should be end of the proceedings. 12. Confronted with the above, learned Public Prosecutor contended that in the case at hand, the allegations are of embezzlement of a huge amount. A question, therefore, arises, whether, in these circumstances, when the charge is of grave nature involving embezzlement of huge amount, should the proceedings be allowed to continue. 13. Shri Rathore reiterated that the embezzlement relates back to the year 1963 and the first information reports were filed belatedly; the charges were read over some times in the year 1968. According to Shri Rathore, rightly, the petitioner has been facing trial for almost about 21 years relating to the allegations of embezzlement which is allegedly committed about 28 years ago and still an application has been filed before the trial Court on 5.1.1991 by the Asstt. According to Shri Rathore, rightly, the petitioner has been facing trial for almost about 21 years relating to the allegations of embezzlement which is allegedly committed about 28 years ago and still an application has been filed before the trial Court on 5.1.1991 by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor for recording the evidence of a hand-writing expert on commission at Nagpur and the case stood fixed for 23.1.91 for hearing arguments on that application, despite the fact that earlier also on 11.8.78 the Supreme Court had directed the trial court to proceed with the cases by day to day hearing. Taking the aid of the aforesaid circumstances, Shri Rathore contended that it is thus clear that after a lapse of about 20 years from 10.9.71 when the High Court had remanded the case with the direction to call certain documents & to dispose of the cases expeditiously, the prosecution, itself, is not satisfied with the evidence which had been led by it and still seeks to lead further evidence by making a request to allow it to record the evidence of a hand-writing expert on commission. 14. I am totally in agreement with the contentions of Shri Rathore and in my view, the circumstances, wrung out from the material on record, it is precisely clear that the prosecution did not care to close its evidence despite the directions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court right from 10.9.1971 till date, and despite several opportunities afforded to it to lead further evidence if any. But, surprisingly enough, the prosecution acted in a lethargy-the benefit of which must go to the petitioner. 15. In Cr. Misc. Petition No. 161/82 (put supra) decided on 05.12.1985, this Court after examining the facts and circumstances appearing on record came to the conclusion that it would be abuse of process of the Court if the proceedings are allowed to continue. Similar are the circumstances in the present petitions and I find no reason to take a different view herein. And, I am prone to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court in the criminal cases in question, taking the aid of the decisions, referred to here in below. 16. In Supdt. Similar are the circumstances in the present petitions and I find no reason to take a different view herein. And, I am prone to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court in the criminal cases in question, taking the aid of the decisions, referred to here in below. 16. In Supdt. & Rememberancer vs. Mohan Singh (1) earlier application for quashing proceedings had been rejected on ground that evidence was yet to be recorded and second application on ground of abuse of judicial process was moved because, the case dragged on for a period of about one and a half years further and in these circumstances, the High Court then, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, quashed the proceedings and the Supreme Court observed that the High Court was perfectly entitled to quash the proceedings keeping in view the fact that despite the rejection of the earlier application of the accused therein, the prosecution had failed to make any progress in the criminal case even though it was filed as far back as 1965 and the criminal case rested where it was for a period of over one and half years. 17. In K. K. Tewari vs. S. P. CBI (2), this Court, after discussing a plethora of decisions on the question of speedy trial and inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, observed that the prosecution could not complete its evidence within the time allowed by the learned Single Judge though a period of more than two years had already roiled by since the direction was given by the Court and according to this Court, the inordinate delay completely remained unexplained therefore, this Court observed that if the trial was allowed to continue, it would take years to last the same and the end was not yet in sight. In ultimate conclusion, the proceedings were quashed. 18. In the case at hand, also, 20 years period has already rolled by since the remand order passed by this Court on 10.9.1971 while the acquittal of the petitioner under judgment of the Sessions Judge was reversed by this Court with the direction to calf certain documents & to dispose of the cases expeditiously. 18. In the case at hand, also, 20 years period has already rolled by since the remand order passed by this Court on 10.9.1971 while the acquittal of the petitioner under judgment of the Sessions Judge was reversed by this Court with the direction to calf certain documents & to dispose of the cases expeditiously. But surprisingly enough, the prosecution has taken two decades to bad evidence and has not yet completed the evidence despite the directions issued twice by the Supreme Court, as referred to above, and all these circumstances tend to disclose that the prosecution has no material to continue the criminal proceedings. The trial Court has also dealt with the cases in a casual manner which is condemned. Even on merits, I find that no prima facie case appears to have been made out against the petitioner. Otherwise also, the chances of ultimate conviction on the material on record are bleak nay nil, and in either case, also, it is a case where looking to the facts & circumstances coupled with the fact that the incident relates back to the year 1963, after 28 years the chances of sending the accused behind the bar are also bleak nay nil in case of conviction, because it would result in miscarriage of justice keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in series of cases, rather he would be released on probation. 19. Having benefitted by the enlightments derived from the various decisions and the extenuating circumstances on record, in my considered opinion, allowing the impugned criminal proceedings to continue after a lapse of about more than 25 years would simulate flogging dead horse. 20. In the result, these criminal misc. petitions (Nos. 211/91, 212/91, 213/91, 214/91, 215/91, 216/91, & 217/91) are allowed. 1 quash the criminal proceedings pending in the following numbered criminal cases before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, against petitioner, Mangilal Vyas :— Old No. New No. (1) 2/74 2/74 (2) 5/74 180/86 (271/86) (3) 6/74 181/86 (272/86) (4) 9/74 182/86 (268/86) (5) 11/74 184/86 (265/86) (6) 12/74 185/86 (266/86) (7) 23/74 186/86 (267/86) The records be sent back.