Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 578 (PAT)

Lakshman Prasad Pal v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution launched against him in Special Case No. 28/90 arising out of Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 5(6)/76 under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that till date no witness has been examined and charges were framed against the petitioner on 27-4-2001 and even thereafter there is no headway in the trial. It is further submitted that the case remained pending since 1976 and the petitioner is alleged to have accepted bribe of Rs. 20.00. Learned counsel points out that initially the petitioner appeared in the case in the year 1976 and he was enlarged on bail and thereafter he appeared again in the case on 13-1-1998. It is further submitted that it is not a case that at no point of time the petitioner had appeared in the case. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajdeo Sharma (II) V/s. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 604 and unreported judgment of a Bench of this Court as contained in Annexure-4. 4. Mr. B. P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, submitted with reference to the counter-affidavit filed by the Vigilance that there was no laches on the part of the prosecution rather the petitioner himself defaulted in appearing before the Court and for the first time, he appeared in the case on 13-1-1998. Mr. Pandey further submitted that the case diary was received in the Court of the Special Judge in the year, 1998 and, therefore, charges could not be framed by the earliest possible. 5. From the materials on record, it appears that the matter has remained pending since 1976 and charges only were framed on 27-4-2001 and even thereafter two adjournments were granted but till date no witness has been examined. 6. 5. From the materials on record, it appears that the matter has remained pending since 1976 and charges only were framed on 27-4-2001 and even thereafter two adjournments were granted but till date no witness has been examined. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the delay in conclusion of the trial and even when the petitioner had appeared (sic) by the earliest possible after launching of the prosecution, police papers could have been made available to him and trial could have commenced. 7. From the facts noticed above, it appears that petitioners right to speedy trial, as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been infringed. On many occasions, this question has been considered by the Apex Court and also by this Court and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Bishwanath Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 97, Israil Rai V/s. State of Bihar (1994 (2) Pat LJR 44, Abdul Rahman Antulay V/s. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 Pat LJR 41: (1992 Cri LJ 2717) (SC) and Rajdeo Sharma (II) V/s. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 604 : 2000 (1) PCCR 374 (SC) wherein it has been held that petitioners right to speedy trial has been violated by delaying the trial, continuance of the prosecution launched against the petitioner must be held to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, as noticed above, I find no alternative but to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioner. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the prosecution launched against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Application allowed.