Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 784 (RAJ)

Vishnu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-04

B.J.SHETHNA

body2001
Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner accused was working as Patwari. He was charged for mis-appropriating public money of Rs. 1008.07 during the period 1.8.71 to 9.6.1973. The learned Magistrate on the conclusion of trial found him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, and 468 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer two years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I. (2). The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner accused in appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh camp at Suratgarh and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate for framing fresh charges against the accused in accordance with law. (3). Accordingly, case was bifurcated into two cases by the learned Magistrate against the accused and he was charged for the aforesaid offences in both the cases. In criminal case No. 497/92, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused, therefore, he acquitted him for the aforesaid charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated 10.6.1993. However, on the same day i.e. on 10.6.1993, he found the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences in criminal case No. 395/76, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated earlier, for mis-appropriating the amount of Rs. 502.02. (4). The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence dated 10.6.1993 passed by the learned Magistrate in criminal case No. 395/76 was once again challenged in criminal appeal No. 17/95 before the Sessions Court which was allowed on 12.8.1997 and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was once again set aside and matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction to frame proper charge against the accused and decide the case against him in accordance with law. (5). Without challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.8.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar camp at Suratgarh in criminal appeal No. 17/95, the petitioner has prayed in this petition to quash the proceedings pending before the court of Addl. (5). Without challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.8.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar camp at Suratgarh in criminal appeal No. 17/95, the petitioner has prayed in this petition to quash the proceedings pending before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh as per the remand order passed by the appellate court on 12.8.97 on the ground that it is a clear case of protracted trial as period of more than 20 years has passed in this case and still the trial against the petitioner is not concluded. (6). I have specifically asked both the learned counsel Shri Kalla and Shri Joshi for the accused as to whether they are challenging the order dated 12.8.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar camp at Suratgarh, whereby, the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate. However, both the learned counsel stated that they have not challenged the said order by which the matter was remanded to the trial court. Infact there is no such prayer in this petition. (7). Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that without challenging the order of remand passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar camp at Suratgarh the accused cannot claim to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh and on this ground alone this petition was required to be dismissed. (8). However, it was submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case period of more than 20 years has passed and the petitioner accused has already retired from service as Patwari, but after his retirement the retiral benefits have been with held by the Government only because of this case pending against him before the learned Magistrate in view of the remand order passed by the appellate court. Therefore, it was submitted that this is a clear case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the proceedings should be quashed because the petitioner has suffered enough. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Babulal and another vs. State of Rajasthan (1). (9). In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Babulal and another vs. State of Rajasthan (1). (9). In case of Babulal (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner accused for last more than 20 years on the ground that though the case was instituted in 1980 no witness was examined at all and the accused was not responsible for the delay. It was a case under the Essential Commodities Act. I fail to understand that how the judgment in Babulals case (supra) will have any application to the facts of this case. (10). In the instant case, serious charges were levelled against the petitioner for mis-appropriating in all amount of Rs. 1008/-. However, he was initially convicted for the offences punishable u/Secs. 409, 467 & 468 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer two years R.I. for each offence. However, the appellate court accepted the appeal of the accused on a technical ground of not properly framing the charges against him. On remand, the learned trial Magistrate bifurcated the case in two cases out of which the accused was acquitted in one case by the learned Magistrate on 10.6.1993. But, on the same day he found the accused guilty in another case of mis-appropriating amount of Rs.502 and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to suffer one year R.I. The said order of conviction and sentence was once again challenged in appeal in 1995 before the appellate court which was once again allowed on a technical plea raised by the accused regarding charge and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate. (11). This shows that delay of more than 20 years in this case has occurred only at the instance of the accused. Twice in appeal against the order of conviction and sentence, technical plea regarding proper charges have not been framed against him was raised and accepted by the appellate court. He had never tried to argue the matter on merits against the order of conviction and sentence when he filed appeal twice before the appellate court. Twice in appeal against the order of conviction and sentence, technical plea regarding proper charges have not been framed against him was raised and accepted by the appellate court. He had never tried to argue the matter on merits against the order of conviction and sentence when he filed appeal twice before the appellate court. Thus, such a person cannot be allowed to plead that it is a case of protracted trial and the fundamental right of the petitioner accused regarding speedy trial is denied to him, therefore, the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate be quashed. (12). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The trial court is now directed to further proceed with the case against the accused after framing proper charge against him and complete the trial and decide the case as early as possible provided the accused cooperates with the trial. Record be sent back to the trial court forthwith.