Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2140 (RAJ)

Mejar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-10-13

K.S.RATHORE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The present miscellaneous criminal petition is preferred by the accused petitioner Mejar Singh for quashing the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 306/63 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. 2. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 406 and 109, Indian Penal Code registered against him vide FIR No. 73/62 at Police Station, Kotwali, Sikar, and charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. 3. The trial was commenced in the criminal case No. 306/63 and some persons namely Rani Chandra, Mangta Ram, Ram Chandra and Desh Ram were charge-sheeted and were convicted on 31.8.67 and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on them but a person whose name, father's name and village's name were quite identical and similar to that person was absconding whose name is also Major Singh. A standing warrant of Major Singh was issued and now in the year 2000, the local police of Punjab State came to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar and applied for anticipatory bail which was granted on 31.8.2000. 4. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged in the year 1962 and since then the trial is not in progress but the criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. Time and again, the matter was listed before the Court and this Court vide order dated 28.1.2002 asked about the progress of the case and further the matter was listed before the Court on 13.4.2004. On that date, the Court directed the Registrar (Vigilance) for seeking explanation from the concerning authorities as to how the record in the present case could be weeded out, during the pendency of the trial against some of the accused persons, who had been declared absconded. 5. The report is not sent by the Registrar (Vig.) till date. Again, this Court vide order dated 27.9.2007 in response to the letter dated 8.3.2006 received from the concerned Court below stating therein that some efforts had been made to reconstitute the file. After one year, the office was again directed to send complete information/ report of the Trial Court about progress before the next date and the matter was fixed on 29.10.2007 but no such report is received by this Court. 6. After one year, the office was again directed to send complete information/ report of the Trial Court about progress before the next date and the matter was fixed on 29.10.2007 but no such report is received by this Court. 6. This Court on 28.2.2008 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner who submitted before the Court that the petitioner is not the same accused in criminal case No. 306/63 and he is unnecessarily being harassed in the present case and further submits that he is prepared to face the trial even in false case but neither the Court nor the prosecution are able to supply the copy of charge-sheet to him. This Court on 28.2.2008 also observed that the matter is pending since 2001 and neither the Courts below have sent the proper reply nor the Public Prosecutor is able to give any satisfactory reply in the matter and the matter is being listed again and again in the Court and ultimately the case was adjourned for hearing in due course. 7. This petition was listed for final disposal on 13.8.2009 and the Court also deemed it proper to call for the progress report from the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in criminal case No. 306/ 63 and the report was sent vide letter dated 25.8.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate. From the report it reveals that the record is still not available with the Court nor any entry in this regard is available and the learned Public Prosecutor was also directed to submit the same. The SHO, Kotwali, Sikar also directed for the same. A letter was also written to the Director General of Police, for reconstituting the record. But still the record is not sent either by the police or by the prosecution and for want of record, the trial is pending since long. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has observed that speedy trial is part of fundamental right to life and liberty and the similar view has been taken by this Court in Kamal Kishore & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 298. 9. v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 298. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the material available on record, the letter for progress report submitted by the Trial Court and the judgment referred by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon's case (supra) has observed as under: . "It is a sad reflection on the legal and judicial system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a long number of years. Even a delay of one year in the commencement of the trial is bad enough : how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as 3 or 5 or 7 or even 10 years. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice." 11. Applying the ratio of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the present case, it reveals that the alleged FIR was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station, Kotwali, Sikar, in the year 1962 and the charge-sheet was filed on 30.12.1962 and since then the trial is pending against the petitioner and almost 47 years are elapsed and neither the record is made available before the Court nor any progress has been made. I am fully convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It is gross violation of provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated as the speedy trial is part of fundamental right. 12. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon's case (supra) as has been discussed hereinabove, the miscellaneous criminal petition stands allowed and the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 306/63, State of Raj. v. Mangtaram & Ors., pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, in relation to accused petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******