Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 105 (JHR)

Subhash Chandra Singh v. State

2002-02-04

D.N.PRASAD

body2002
ORDER D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal prosecution in respect of RC 14 of 1987 registered under Section 5(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 13(l)(i)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. Section 13(2) of the P&C Act, 1988 and Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code including the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Ranchi. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this case is pending for evidence since 1991 when the charge was framed in this case and the case has not yet been concluded for non appearance of the witnesses since 5.9.2001 inspite of direction of this Court. In view of Rajdeo Sharmas case, this case should have been concluded and disposed of but even then the trial Court is sitting tight over the matter and not concluding the case expeditiously as per direction of this Court. It is also submitted that the court below directed the prosecution to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses till 7.2.2000 but even then the prosecution could not examined the witnesses and the case is still lying pending for no fault on the part of the petitioner/accused. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted that one witness was present on 1.7.2000 when the accused/petitioner could not ap- pear and as such his ball bond was cancelled and again it was fixed for hearing on 5.9.2000 on day-today- basis. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI undertakes to conclude the case within the stipulated time framed by this Court on the priority basis. 5. It appears that six witnesses have already been examined in this case and there was specific direction by the trial Court to the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses so that the case may be concluded expeditiously. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner had also earlier moved this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 7534 of 1986(R) for quashing of the criminal proceeding which was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. 7. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner had also earlier moved this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 7534 of 1986(R) for quashing of the criminal proceeding which was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. 7. The trial is going on but the trial Court is to take effective steps for attendance of rest of the witnesses so that the trial may be concluded without further delay and the trial may be expedited and concluded on day-today basis as this case is pending since long. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstance. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage which is accordingly dismissed. 9. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial by taking coercive steps against the remaining witnesses on day-today basis and conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner/accused is also directed to cooperate in the trial proceeding.