Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 647 (PAT)

Ramji Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-30

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding pending against this petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad arising out of Jehanabad PS. Case No. 8(9)/68, G.R. No. 681/68. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed on muster roll in Bihar State Electricity Board, Jehanabad who retired on 31.1.2000. On 11.9.1968 the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Jehanabad lodged Fardbeyan against this petitioner before Jehanabad police station upon which a case was registered against the petitioner under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code for missing of four hundred bags of cement. The chargesheet was submitted by the police on 13.12.1968. On 2.3.1970 the charge was framed against this petitioner. Ultimately on 27.7.1976 the case was fixed for judgment. However, the judgment was not delivered due to wrong marking of some documents. Since then the case is travelling from one court to another court for final disposal. In this process some documents were also lost. On 24.3.1990 permission was granted to the court concerned for reconstruction of missing documents. The same has not yet been reconstructed and thus the case is still not ripe for disposal. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sword of conviction is hanging upon this petitioner since last thirty eight years and there is no chance of disposal of the case in near future. It is clear violation of fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as Sec.309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also relied upon a decision reported in 1992(1) SCC 279 [ : 1992(1) PLJR (SC)41] (A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak), 2004(3) PLJR 349 (Rakesh Ray vs. State of Bihar) as well as a recent decision of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11582/06. 4. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as also the allegation levelled against him including the period of pendency of the case, I am of the opinion that this case clearly falls within the parameter laid down in the above decisions of the Apex Court. Continuance of criminal prosecution against this petitioner since such a long period without chance of early disposal is not only oppressive and unwarranted but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 5. Continuance of criminal prosecution against this petitioner since such a long period without chance of early disposal is not only oppressive and unwarranted but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 5. The case is also triable by the Court of Magistrate. It is pending since last 39 years without any fault of the petitioner. 6. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it would be highly unjustified to allow this case to remain pending. It has now become persecution of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Jehanabad RS. Case No. 8(9)/68 is hereby quashed.