Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 267 (CHH)

GYAS AHMED v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-09-23

DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2008
ORDER Hon 'hie Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. :- 1. The aforesaid petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the applicants, by the instant petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet filed against them in connection with Crime No.3/94 in the Court of Special judge, Korba, as case No. 14/2007 for offence punishable under Sections 409,420, 467 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and Sections 13( 1)( d) (ii) (iii) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The allegation against the petitioners in the charge sheet is that the petitioners were working as Assistant Engineers, Senior Accountant, Sub Engineer, LDC and Accounts Officer under the Special Area Development Authority (for short 'SAD A') Korba at the relevant time. Several complaints were received against the Chairman, other Engineers and employees of SAD A. As per the orders of the State Government, Chief Technical Examiner (for short 'CTE') vide his order dated 21-12-90 directed Executive Engineer, CTE (Vigilance) for conducting enquiry on the aforesaid complaint. He conducted enquiry between 19-1-91 and 22-1-91 and submitted his report to CTE. Thereafter, CTE (Vigilance) submitted his report dated 11-4-91 to the Sate Government. After receiving the report of the Chief Technical Examiner, the State Government directed State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau to conduct enquiry on the basis of the above report and thereafter aforesaid offence was registered firstly at State Economic Offence investigation Bureau, Raipur on 3 -1-94 and on the basis of above, aforesaid crime was registered on 10-2-94 at State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Bhopal. 3. 3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 10-12-2007 with the allegations that there were irregularities in construction of Ring Road, as measurement for bitunlinization of 6 km of long road was not recorded correctly; test report of ratio of grit and bitumen was not obtained; contractors supplied bitun1en; measurement of leveling course and bitun1en macdun1 was not recorded in the measurement book; excess payment of more than Rs.161akhs was made to the contractors for construction of bituminization; tenders were not invited for bitun1inization of 7-12 km of Ring Road and fabrications in the note sheet; excess payment of more than Rs.22 lakhs was made to the contractor; tenders were not invited for maintenance work of road and signatures of the various contractors on tender applications, tender papers, tender issue register, return of security deposit were forged; more than Rs.15 lakhs was paid to a contractor against actual work of Rs.27,891/-; road construction of Chura-Kachhar. approach road was not as per specification; payment of Rs.5 lakhs was made whereas, actual work done was of Rs.1,66,178/-; similarly, in between Lata Balgikhar & Dangaria Khar, road was not as per specification; correct entries were not made in the measurement book and accordingly excess payment of RsA,96,183/- was made to the contractors. The accused persons, in criminal conspiracy with the contractors, prepared defective estimates with a fraudulent and dishonest intention. They were allowed to work in violation of the rules. The charge sheet was filed after obtaining permission from the State Government against all the applicants and other accused persons. 4. Shri Prashant J ayaswal, learned Senior Counsel, contended that at the relevant time SADA, Korba was presided by the Chairman belonging to a particular ruling party. Member of Parliament of other opposite party lodged a complaint to the EOW regarding alleged irregularities in the work of SAD A and there was rampant corruption by the office bearer of SADA in collusion with the Government employees. The District Unit President of the same party also lodged similar complaint against office bearers and government employees of the SADA before the Chief Minister. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint EOW, Bhopal conducted preliminary investigation and directed filing of the first information report against the accused persons. Accordingly, the aforesaid offence was registered. The District Unit President of the same party also lodged similar complaint against office bearers and government employees of the SADA before the Chief Minister. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint EOW, Bhopal conducted preliminary investigation and directed filing of the first information report against the accused persons. Accordingly, the aforesaid offence was registered. First information report was forwarded by EOW Headquarters Bhopal to EOW, Raipur on 22-3-94 with a direction to conduct further investigation in the matter and forward the recommendation with details of investigation to the headquarters. After investigation charge sheet was prepared on 10-12-2007 and the same was filed on 22-12-2007. The work pertains to the period from 1987 to 1990. First information report is based on the report of Chief Technical Examiner. The Chief Technical Examiner conducted whole enquiry from 19-1-91 to 22-1-1991 and completed the same within a period of 4 days. 5. Referring to Chhattisgarh Works Department Manual Volume-II, it was argued that appendix 9.27 of the above manual deals with Chief Technical Examiner Organization. The duties of the Organization are to inspect important works in progress and to enquire into the fraud and negligence in discharge of the government work. Clause 26 of the appendix clearly mentions about action against delinquent officers. The Chief Technical Examiner's report should not be made basis for charge sheet and statement of allegations. It is the responsibility of the department to get further investigation done through departmental heads in the light of Chief Technical Examiner report whereupon they satisfy themselves as to which of the officers or contractors are fully responsible for the defects (Annexure-P/5). 6. In the instant matter, the Chief Technical Examiner had addressed a letter to the General Administration Department of the Government in which it is clearly stated that as per clause 26 of appendix 9.27 ofannexure-P/5, it is the bounden duty of the department to get the matter further investigated and come to its own conclusion (Annexure-P/6). The Assistant I.G., EOW, Raipur, had also addressed a letter of Annexure-PI7 dated 18-4-96 to Chief Executive Officer to apprise him whether any further investigation was conducted after the report of the Chief Technical Examiner and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer vide Annexure-P/8 dated 8-8-96 informed A.I.G. that no investigation was done by the SADA in the matter after investigation by the CTE. In the circumstances, crime could not be registered solely on the basis of the report of CTE without any further investigation by the department. 7. It was further argued that charge sheet has been filed without any valid sanction, as contemplated under Section 19 (3) of the Act, 1988. From perusal of sanction order of Annexure- P 13, it would be evident that same has been accorded without application of mind. On the same set of evidence, sanction to prosecute the applicants has been granted whereas, sanction has been refused for prosecution of other accused persons namely, Gulab Singh Solanki and Mithilesh Kumar Venna. 8. The offence is allegedly committed between 1987 and 1990 by the applicants. The report of the CTE was submitted in the year 1991. However, offence was registered only in the year 1994 and the charge sheet has been filed against the applicants after 13 years of the registration of first information report in the year 2007. Thus, there is delay of almost 17 years in launching prosecution against the present applicants, therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay, without any explanation for the same, charge sheet deserves to be quashed. 9. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for applicant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, contended that apart from the arguments advanced by Shri Jayaswal, tearned senior counsel in the case of the applicant, even if the allegation present in the charge sheet is accepted in its entirety, no offence as alleged against the applicant is made out. The applicant was working as Assistant Director and he was holding post of senior auditor in the department of Local Audit Fund. He was posted on 24-10-89 on deputation as Accounts Officer in SADA, Korba, vide Anenxure A/1. As per the work distribution memo of Annexure-A/2, duties of the accounts officer were maintenance of cash book and passing the checked bills. The only allegation after his posting in the year 1989 is that whatever running bills were presented before him after preparation by the in-charge Sub Engineer and after due verification by the concerned Assistant Engineer and Divisional Accountant for passing the same were passed by him. One Shri A.R. Khan was working as Accounts Officer before his posting on 26-10-89 during the period of commission of alleged crime. However, Shri Khan has been arrayed as witness, whereas the present applicant has been made an accused without any justification. 10. One Shri A.R. Khan was working as Accounts Officer before his posting on 26-10-89 during the period of commission of alleged crime. However, Shri Khan has been arrayed as witness, whereas the present applicant has been made an accused without any justification. 10. On the other hand, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that it is settled law that the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet is very limited. At this stage, weighing or scrutiny of the evidence on merits is not permissible. At this stage, the only thing to be seen is whether continuance of proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court or not. In the instant case, report of the Technical Examiner (Vigilance) was forwarded to the department of General Administration for investigation by EOW on 11-4-91. The matter was further investigated by EOW and only thereafter the offence was registered in the year 1994. The process of investigation was set into motion on the basis of the report of CTE. However, report of the CTE is not the only basis for registering the offence and the offence was registered after completion of the preliminary investigation by the EOW. In the process of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and from the evidence collected in the preliminary investigation, prima facie, evidence of irregularities and corruption which resulted in illegal loss to the SADA and illegal gain to the certain contractors was discovered. There is prima facie evidence against the accused persons who were Chairman, CEO, Chief Engineer, Assistant Engineers and other employees of SADA. The applicants have been charged with offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. apart from other offences. Their individual role as responsible officers/employees of SAD A has been duly mentioned in the charge sheet and because of acts of omission & commission on the part of the accused persons SADA suffered huge financial loss. The applicants have been charged with offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. apart from other offences. Their individual role as responsible officers/employees of SAD A has been duly mentioned in the charge sheet and because of acts of omission & commission on the part of the accused persons SADA suffered huge financial loss. The applicants in conspiracy with contractors have caused illegal loss to the SADA and illegal gain to the contractors and, therefore, looking to the statements of witnesses namely, Devendra Singh Bais, Office Superintendent; Arvind Wankhede, Kamal Kumar Dewangan, Gajadhar Singh, N.S. Rana, N.S. Rathore, Narayan Prasad Dewangan, Raj Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dhruv, Deen Dayal Sharma, Kamlesh Kumar, Abdul Rashid Khan, Smt. Rita Giri, Nelan Samad, Khalil Khan, Sunau Ram Patal and the documents seized during investigation, it would be evident that there is prima facie evidence against all the accused persons that they in conspiracy with the contractors prepared forged tender documents, awarded contract without inviting tender, did not make correct entries in the measurement books, thereby caused huge loss to the SADA and gain to the contractors. 11. So far as arguments advanced by Shri Jayaswal that there is no valid sanction, as the sanction was accorded without application of mind is concerned, from perusal of the sanction order, it would be evident that sanctioning authority after considering evidence available on record has accorded sanction for prosecution. The petitioners cannot claim quashing of the charge sheet only on the ground that sanction was not granted for prosecution of 2 co-accused persons, as refusal to prosecute other co-accused persons cannot be a ground for quashing of charge sheet against applicants. Accused Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, Accounts Officer of SAD A had a duty to assist SADA in the scrutiny and processing of claims of the contractors. However, he mechanically forwarded bills produced before him for payment to the contractors for passing to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer without himself examining financial irregularity in the matter. 12. So far as objection regarding delay in completing investigation and filing charge sheet is concerned, after receiving complaint regarding irregularity in the road construction work, the matter was promptly enquired into by the Chief Technical Examiner (Vigliance), who submitted his report detailing huge financial irregularities committed by the accused persons. 12. So far as objection regarding delay in completing investigation and filing charge sheet is concerned, after receiving complaint regarding irregularity in the road construction work, the matter was promptly enquired into by the Chief Technical Examiner (Vigliance), who submitted his report detailing huge financial irregularities committed by the accused persons. The report was further forwarded for investigation to the EO W, Raipur and on the basis of preliminary report, offence was registered against the applicants. Since charge sheet could not be filed, only on the basis of CTE's report, statements of witnesses were recorded, after registration of the crime and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Though there is delay of 13 years in filing charge sheet taking into consideration nature of the offence, number of the accused persons and witnesses, only on the ground of delay charge sheet cannot be quashed against the applicants, -. who were charged with serious offence of fabrication of tender documents and corruption. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused voluminous charge sheet filed against the applicants. 14. The applicants have prayed for quashing of charge sheet on the following grounds: (i) Offence was registered on the basis of report of the Chief Technical Examiner without conducting separate enquiry as envisaged in PWD Works Manual; (ii) Sanction has been accorded mechanically without application of mind; (iii) Even if allegation against applicant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari present in charge sheet is accepted in its entirety, same does not constitute any offence against him; and (iv) The applicants have fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of speedy trial and there is inordinate & unexplained delay in completing investigation and filing charge sheet. Offence was registered on the basis of report of the Chief Technical Examiner without conducting separate enquiry as envisaged in PWD Works Manual. 15. The aforesaid argument is based on clarification under Clause 26 of appendix 9.27 of the Works Manual which deals with Chief Technical Examiner Organization. Various functions and duties have been assigned to this organization including inspection of the works, checking of the works and bills after payment on the basis of measured site, technical and administrative audit of the completed work as well as work under progress and also refer cases offraud and negligence to the Government. Various functions and duties have been assigned to this organization including inspection of the works, checking of the works and bills after payment on the basis of measured site, technical and administrative audit of the completed work as well as work under progress and also refer cases offraud and negligence to the Government. Clarification referred to by the applicants in this regard is only to the extent that for initiating action against delinquent officer reference of the Chief Technical Examiner's report should not be made in charge sheet and statement of allegations and responsibility has been cast on the department to get further investigation done through departmental heads in the light of CTE's report and only after satisfying themselves charge sheet should be issued against the responsible officer/contractor. In the instant case, CTE's report was forwarded by the Government to EO W for preliminary investigation and only thereafter on the basis of report of investigating Officer J.P. Dwivedi offence was registered and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons including the applicants. The correspondences referred to by learned counsel for the applicants from AIG, EOW and its reply by Chief Executive Officer of SAD A cannot be made a basis to hold that no enquiry was conducted after CTE submitted his report. Sanction has been accorded mechanically without application of mind. 16. Sanction has been accorded by the Government for prosecution of the accused persons vide order dated 18-9-2007. From perusal of the above order, it is evident that sanctioning authority, after considering documentary and oral evidence available on record, has accorded sanction. The validity of the sanction cannot be assailed at this stage and the same cannot be made a ground for quashing of charge sheet. Even if allegation against applicant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari present in charge sheet is accepted in its entirety, same does not constitute any offence against him. 17. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for Accounts Officer Dinesh Kumar Tiwari vehemently argued that responsibility of the Accounts Officer is only to process the bills presented before him by the officers responsible for execution of the work. The bills are initially produced before the Divisional Accountant, who after verification forwards the same before the applicant and the applicant is only responsible to check it and satisfy himself whether the same has been presented after due checking. The bills are initially produced before the Divisional Accountant, who after verification forwards the same before the applicant and the applicant is only responsible to check it and satisfy himself whether the same has been presented after due checking. Allegation against all the accused persons is that they, in conspiracy with the contractors of the department, prepared a false estimate, thereafter without inviting any tender assigned the work to the contractors and without actual execution of the work and without entering correct entries in the measurement books, payments were claimed by producing the bills and the same were further passed firstly by Divisional Accountant and thereafter by the Accounts Officer, without verification from the measurement books for payment and accordingly payments were made. The duties, functions and responsibilities of the Accounts Officer are mentioned in appendix 1.29 of the Chhattisgarh Works Department Manual (II), which also casts a duty on him that he shall assist the head of the department in scrutiny and process of claims of the contractor/suppliers. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be held that the applicant is not responsible for commission of offence. 18. Shri Dubey placed reliance in the matter of Anil Kumar Bose Vs. State of Bihar. In the said case, the accountant was acquitted of the charges under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. with an observation that "On the above evidence at the highest it was a failure on the part of the Accountant to perform his duties or to observe the rules of procedure laid down in the Duty Chart in a proper manner and may, therefore, be an administrative lapse on his part about which we are not required to pronounce any opinion in this case". In the aforesaid matter, the Accountant was convicted by the trial Court after evidence and conviction was confined by the High Court. 19. Similarly, in the matter of Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarar, the appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 20 and 7, 11 & 13(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was convicted under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act by the Special Judge and his appeal was also dismissed by the Gujarat high Court. However, his appeal was allowed by the Apex Court with an observation that there is no evidence that the accused demanded any amount from the complainant. He was convicted under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act by the Special Judge and his appeal was also dismissed by the Gujarat high Court. However, his appeal was allowed by the Apex Court with an observation that there is no evidence that the accused demanded any amount from the complainant. Statutory presumption under Section 20 is not available for offence punishable under Section 13(I)(d) of the Act. However, in the instant case, the applicant has prayed for quashing of charge sheet as he is facing prosecution for various offences under the IPC including offence under section 120-B of the I.P.C. for criminal conspiracy apart from offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and evidence has not been adduced by the parties. The applicants have fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of speedy trial and there is inordinate & unexplained delay in completing investigation and filing charge-sheet. 20. In the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and other:?, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering scope of interference while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in para-108 has held that "we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the EI.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations mace in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 21. In para-l 09, the Apex Court further held that "We also give a note of caution to the effect that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the ELR. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 22. In the matter of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others Vs. Md. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 22. In the matter of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and others also, principle oflaw laid down in Bhajan Lal (Supra) Case has been reiterated in para-10 of the judgment. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar and others5 has held that: "Article 21 of the Constitution comers every citizen with a right to speedy trial of the case pending against him. It is in the interest of all concerned that guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. The right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages, namely, stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. While determining the alleged delay, the court has to decide each case on its facts having regard to all attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions etc. Every delay may not be taken as causing prejudice to the accused but the alleged delay has to be considered in the totality of the circumstances and the general conspectus of the case. Inordinate long delay can be taken as a presentive proof of prejudice. 24. Again in the matter of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State ofKarnataka6, the Apex Court observed thus: "(4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause case (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II). The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause case (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused." 25. In the matter of State of Karnataka through C.B.I. Vs. C. Nagarajaswami, the accused was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Initially, the accused was discharged by the Special Court for want of valid sanction. Fresh charge sheet was filed after obtaining order of sanction, which was again challenged by the accused by way of petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Relying on the aforesaid judgments i.e. Mahendra Lal Das & P Ramachandra Raos (Supra), the judgments of the High Court were set aside and the trial Court was requested to dispose of the matters at an early date preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order, subject, of course, to rendition of all co-cooperation of the respondents. 26. In the matter of Pankaj Kumar Vs. 26. In the matter of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.8, relied upon by the applicants, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court referring to various earlier judgments including the judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) has extensively dealt with constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of speedy trial of the accused in the following terms : "(i) fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily; (ii) right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, nanlely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial; (Hi) in every case where the speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the first question to be put and answered is - who is responsible for the delay?; (iv) while determining whether undue delay has. occurred (resulting in violation of right to speedy trial) one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on - what is called, the systemic delays; (v) each and every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused. Some delays may indeed work to his advantage. However, inordinately long delay may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice. In this context, the fact of incarceration of accused will also be a relevant fact. The prosecution should not be allowed to become a persecution. But when does the prosecution become persecution, again depends upon the facts of a given case; (vi) ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors - 'balandng test' or 'balancing process' - and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied; (vii) Ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only course open and having regard to the nature of offence and other circumstances when the court feels that quashing of proceedings cannot be in the interest of justice, it is open to the court to make appropriate orders, including fixing the period for completion of trial; (viii) it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any outer time-limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint; (ix) an objection based on denial of right to speedy trial and for relief on that account, should first be addressed to the High Court. Even if the High Court entertains such a plea, ordinarily it should not stay the proceedings, except in a case of grave and exceptional nature. Such proceedings in High Court must, however, be disposed of on a priority basis." 27. In the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court applying the above principles of law and further considering facts of the case that offence was committed in the year 1981, offence was registered in the year 1987, charge sheet was submitted in the year 1991, even after filing of the charge sheet nothing happened till 1999 and there was no explanation for the delay and also considering nature of accusations against the applicant, who was young boy about 18 years in 1981 when the acts of omission and commission were allegedly committed by the concerned, managed by his parents, who have since died, quashed criminal proceeding initiated against him. 28. In the present case, the period of commission of offence was between I 1987 and 1990, complaint was made in the year 1991, CTE submitted his report 1 to the Government in April, 1991, on the basis of this report preliminary investigation was ordered and on the report of the investigating officer crime was registered in the year 1994, charge sheet was filed after 13 years in 2007 after recording statements of36 witnesses and effecting seizures of various documents between 1992 and 2000 and obtaining sanction for prosecution. From the record, it is also observed that application for sanction was filed in the month of January, 2003, I however, sanction was accorded only on 18-9-2007. 29. From the record, it is also observed that application for sanction was filed in the month of January, 2003, I however, sanction was accorded only on 18-9-2007. 29. Relying upon principles of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, taking into consideration nature of allegations detailed in foregoing paragraphs, the manner in which all the officers of SADA from lowest rank to the Chairman were involved in the offence, I am of the opinion that prosecution cannot be quashed only on the ground of unexplained and inordinate delay and the delay deserves to be condoned. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, both the petitions are dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the trial Court shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 1 year from the date of communication of this order, subject, of course, to rendition of all co-operation of the applicants herein and other accused persons. Petition Dismissed.