Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 633 (CAL)

GITA BHOWMICK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2000-12-14

RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER

body2000
R. K. MAZUMDER, J. ( 1 ) THE instant criminal revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the accused-petitioner Smt. Geeta Bhowmick, a Headmistress of Bethuadahari Girls' High School, Nadia and this is for quashing the instant criminal proceeding arising out of G. R. Case No. 1787 of 1972 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia. ( 2 ) THE case of the accused-petitioner was in brief that on 17. 8. 72, Shri Shibram Singha Roy, since deceased, filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner and two others making several allegations against them before the learned SDJM, Krishnanagar, Nadia. Thereafter the learned Court below treated the said petition of complaint as a FIR under section 156 (3) Cr. PC and sent the same to the Police for investigation. After necessary investigation the Police started a case being Nakashipara, PS. Case No. 24 dated 17. 8. 72 under sections 406/408/465/466/468/477a/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and two others. But unfortunately the Police failed to submit any charge-sheet in the said case for a long long time and hence the learned SDJM, Krishnanagar passed an order on 22. 1. 76 directing the Investigating Police Officer to submit a report by 24. 3. 76 and it was also mentioned in the said order that in default of such submission of charge-sheet, the accused persons would be discharged from the case. Despite such order the Police failed to submit any chargesheet in the case and hence on 6. 7. 77 the learned Court below discharged the petitioner and others from the said case. However, on 15. 11. 78 the Police submitted a charge-sheet in the said case against the petitioner and two others under sections 406/408/465/166/468/471/4771a/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Based on such charge-sheet the learned Court below summoned the petitioner and others. Accordingly the pertitioner surrendered before the learned Court below on 12. 12. 78 and was granted bail. Thereafter the prosecution failed to produce any witness in the said case and on 21. 4. 87 the learned Court below passed an order direction that if no witness turned up on 29. 6. 87, the petitioner and other accused persons would be discharged from the case. But unfortunately no witness turned up on the date also. Nonetheless the learned Court below fixed another date viz. 28. 4. 87 the learned Court below passed an order direction that if no witness turned up on 29. 6. 87, the petitioner and other accused persons would be discharged from the case. But unfortunately no witness turned up on the date also. Nonetheless the learned Court below fixed another date viz. 28. 8. 87 for examination of the prosecution witnesses, on 28. 8. 87 only one witness was examined in part and learned Court below fixed another date viz. 28. 1. 88 with the direction that if no witness is examined on that date, prosecution evidence will be treated as closed as the case was being dragged on for a long time. On 28. 1. 88 no witness turned up. Thereafter the learned Court below fixed several dates for examination of the prosecution witnessed viz. 13. 3. 90, 16. 5. 90, 4. 8. 90, 28. 11. 90, 25. 2. 91 and 18. 4. 91, but unfortunately no prosecution witnesses were examined as they did not turn up for giving evidence. According to the petitioner, the glaring feature of the instant case was that there was in fact no case as such against her at all as alleged and hence the prosecution failed again and again to produce witnesses for their examination in the case against the petitioner, who happened to be the Headmistress of Bethuadahari Girls' High School. Besides it was her further case that although under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, she was entitled to get speedy and fair trial, she has been denied the same inasmuch as the prosecution failed again and again to examine witnesses over the years and that there was no possibility of conclusion of the instant trial in the near future. Hence the prayer for quashing the present proceeding. ( 3 ) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length in the matter. ( 4 ) THE only question requiring consideration was whether the instant criminal proceeding arising out of G. R. Case No. 1787 of 1972 should be quashed under section 482 of the Code as prayed for by the petitioner. ( 3 ) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length in the matter. ( 4 ) THE only question requiring consideration was whether the instant criminal proceeding arising out of G. R. Case No. 1787 of 1972 should be quashed under section 482 of the Code as prayed for by the petitioner. ( 5 ) AT the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that his client, who happened to be the Headmistress of a Girls's High School, had been facing the ordeal of protracted trial for the last about 28 years inasmuch as although the FIR was lodged as long back as on 4. 8. 72 yet the prosecution failed and neglected to examine a single witness in full excepting that of one witness, who was examined but only in part. His further submission was that several dates were fixed by the learned Court below viz. 13. 3. 90, 16. 5. 90, 4. 8. 90, 28. 11. 90, 25. 2. 91 and 18. 4. 91 but in vain. He further submitted that his client was discharged from this case at the stage of investigation as the Police failed and neglected to submit a charge-sheet against the petitioner. His further submition was that thereafter the Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner on 15. 11. 78 i. e. after about 6 years from the time of commencement of the proceeding. Since then the prosecution could examine only one witness so far and that, too, in part. It was also submitted by him that the petitioner was now about 65/70 years old and she was suffering from various old age ailments. It was also submitted by him that his client was not given any pensionary benefit after her retirement from service only because of the pendency of this case against her. It was further submitted by him that his client had no hand in the matter of prolonged trial of this case. In other words, it was his submission that the long delay which took place in this case was only due to the fault, laches and lapses on the part of the prosecution for which his client should not be allowed to suffer mental agoney and anxiety. In other words, it was his submission that the long delay which took place in this case was only due to the fault, laches and lapses on the part of the prosecution for which his client should not be allowed to suffer mental agoney and anxiety. It was again submitted by him that expeditious trial of a case was the basic right of an accused and it could not be violated. His further submission was that the inordinate delay which took place in this case only pointed out to the fact that the prosecution moved in a lackadaisical manner and failed to secure the attendance of witnesses over the long long years. According to him such inordinate delay violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, he urged upon this Court to quash the instant criminal proceeding in exercise of the Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) I have deeply considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. At the same time, I have gone through the entire materials of the case as available on records including the lower Court Records. ( 7 ) IT appears from record that a written complaint was lodged by the defacto-complainant-informant Shri Shiba Ram Singha Roy, now deceased, before the Court of learned SDJM, Krishnanagar, who forwarded the same to Nakashipara P. S. , District Nadia, treating the said complaint as FIR under section 156 (3) Cr. PC for necessary investigation by the Police. This gave rise to Nakashipra P. S. Case No. 24 dated 17. 8. 72. It also appears from record that since then the Police moved in a lackadaisical manner inasmuch as it failed to submit charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for a pretty long time. It also appears from record that due to the failure on the part of the Police to submit a charge-sheet against the petitioner for a long time, the learned Court below discharged the petitioner and others from this case on 6. 7. 77. Since then long time still flew by and it was only on 15. 11. 78 that the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and others under sections 406 / 408 / 465 / 466 / 468 / 471 / 477a /201 / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. 77. Since then long time still flew by and it was only on 15. 11. 78 that the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and others under sections 406 / 408 / 465 / 466 / 468 / 471 / 477a /201 / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It again appears from the record that since the time of submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner long time again flew by as prosecution failed to secure the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of their examination in Court. The Court below fixed several dates directing the prosecution to produce the witnesses but in vain. It was only on 28. 8. 87 that only one witness was examined and that, too, in part. It also appears that the said witness did not speak a single word against the petitioner. Be that as it may, the learned Court below fixed several dates for examination of the prosecution witnesses viz. 13. 3. 90, 16. 5. 90, 4. 8. 90, 28. 11. 90, 25. 2. 91 and 18. 4. 91 but there was no trangible result. It again appears that several charges were framed against the petitioner and some others in respect of offences punishable under sections 465/468/471/477a/408/201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. One such charge was regarding a forged Resolution of the school dated 10. 7. 70 involving a sum of Rs. 3000/ -. She has also been charged with committing an offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of sum of Rs. 1000/- belonging to the school as punishable under section 408 of the IPC. Another charge was for committing breach of trust in respect of a paltry sum of Rs. 35. 50 belonging to the school. For proving the said charges the prosecution could examine only one witness, who happened to be an Assistant Headmistress of the school, on 28. 8. 87 and as already stated the said witness did not speak a single word against the petitioner. It appears that this long delay is mainly due to non-appearence of the prosecution witnesses. Because of the said delay, the petitioner suffered a lot of anxiety and mental agoney during the last 28 years. Hence continuence of the instant criminal proceeding against the petitioner will further add to her sufferings inasmuch as the conclusion of the instant trial in the near future is far from reality. Because of the said delay, the petitioner suffered a lot of anxiety and mental agoney during the last 28 years. Hence continuence of the instant criminal proceeding against the petitioner will further add to her sufferings inasmuch as the conclusion of the instant trial in the near future is far from reality. ( 8 ) THE accused has of course a right to speedy trial and this is now considered as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence continuence of the instant criminal proceeding beyond 28 years past clearly violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Since expeditious trial is a basic right, it cannot be trampled or treated particularly when the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in the trial. ( 9 ) I the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the instant criminal revisional application must be allowed. Accordingly I have no hesitation in quashing the instant criminal proceeding arising out of G. R. Case No. 1787 of 1972 and hence the same is hereby quashed. ( 10 ) ALL pensionary benefits on retirement shall be given to the petitioner within a period of six months from this date, if admissible, and due. Order of stay as granted by this Court is hereby vacated. Let the Lower Court Records be sent down to the learned Court below concerned immediately. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned CJM, Krishnanagar, Nadia and also learned SDJM concerned. There will be no order as to costs. The criminal revisional application is thus disposed of. If urgent certified copy is applied for, office is directed to issue the same as early as possible. Application allowed.