Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 988 (PAT)

Md. Taslim v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-11

S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) the petitioner has challenged the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court, by reason of which petitioners prayer for closing the prosecution case has been rejected. 3. Admittedly the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and is on bail. There is no dispute that the trial is pending for more than two years from the date of framing of charge. On 17.2.99 the petitioner filed a petition for closing the case and for his discharge. The same was rejected by the learned trial court and ultimately affirmed by the revisional court on being moved by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that none of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of "Common Cause" A Registered Society V/s. Union of India and others [ (1996) 4 SCC 33 ] or clarificatory order subsequent thereto will be applicable to, the case of the petitioner inasmuch as Directions No. 1(a)(b)(c) and 2(a) to (f) are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. According to him those directions were made by the Supreme Court where imprisonment is not exceeding three years and the accused is not on bail. Similarly, those directions will be applicable to such type of cases, which are compoundabie with permission of the court. According to him those directions were made by the Supreme Court where imprisonment is not exceeding three years and the accused is not on bail. Similarly, those directions will be applicable to such type of cases, which are compoundabie with permission of the court. In a nut shell his argument is that the petitioners case does not come under the purview of any of the directions made by the Supreme Court, On the contrary he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma V/s. State of Bihar [(1998)3 BLJR 2196 : 1998 (3) PLJR 57] in support of his argument that even in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act their Lordships were of the view that in cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case. 5. In my view the contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable inasmuch as he has failed to appreciate paragraph-4 of the judgment in the case of "Common Cause" A Registered Society (supra), where it has been categorically laid down that "Directions (1) and (2) made hereinabove shall not apply to cases of offences involving (a) corruption, misappropriation of public funds, cheating, whether under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on any other statutes. There are mentioning of some other Acts with which we are not concerned at present. In Rajdeo Sharmas case their Lordships have further held that the directions given in Rajdeo Sharmas case will be in addition to and without prejudice to those directions issued by this Court in "Common Cause" and which are modified by the same Bench reported in (1996)6 SCC 775 . In such view of the matter in my opinion even in subsequent decision their Lordships have not deviated from the observations made in paragraph-4 of the decision of the "Common Cause". 6. In such view of the matter in my opinion even in subsequent decision their Lordships have not deviated from the observations made in paragraph-4 of the decision of the "Common Cause". 6. In this case admittedly one of the charges against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Penal Code i.e. the offence relating to cheating. 7. Under these circumstances, in my view, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner was entitled to get his trial closed only on the ground that there was delay in disposal of the trial for more than two years. 8. I find no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The revisional court has correctly directed the trial court to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously and I reiterate this direction.