Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pankaj Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 8 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Present: - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.
C.R.R. No. - 2822 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Pankaj Kumar Mondal.
Vs.
State of West Bengal.
For the petitioner : Mr. Abirlal Chakraborti, Adv.,
For theState : Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal, Adv.,
Mr. Pratick Bose Adv.
Judgment on : 08.02.2023
Subhendu Samanta, J.
This is an application u/s 401 and Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing the Criminal Proceeding being G.R
Case No. 3852 of 2000 arising out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 776
dated 24.11.2000 u/s 120B/420/467/468/471/1420 of IPC. where
from arose charge sheet No. 476 of 2004 dated 20.11.2004 u/s
120B/420/467/468/471 of IPC which was initially in the court of
Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta which was
subsequently transferred to the court of Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate 5th Court Calcutta and is still pending therein.
In a nutshell the allegation levelled in the FIR was that during
the petitioner's service as a Police Constable in the year 1993, he had
submitted a school certificate where there was an alleged anomaly
regarding his date of birth. For the alleged Act of 1983 a First
Information Report was lodged in this case in the year 2000 and a
charge sheet was submitted in 2004. Although, trial commenced in the
year 2005, PW 1 was examined in 2006 and PW 2 was also examined in
the same year. Thereafter one witness appeared in the year 2008since
then no one appeared out of 11 charge sheeted witnesses. It is the case
of the revisionist before this court that the petitioner had to face agony
of pendency of Criminal Trial for an act alleged to be happened in the
year 1983. It is the further case of the petitioner that inordinate delay
has been caused in the Trial without being fault of the petitioner, thus
the proceeding ought to be quashed.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that FIR
was lodged in the year 2000 and we are now in the year 2023, already
23 years has already been elapsed; trial has not been processed yet so,
pendency of the Criminal Litigation has ruined the free living of the
present petitioner. He has suffered immense mental agony due to such
pendency of Criminal Trial. The approach of the prosecution in respect
of the instant Criminal Case is to be looked into. The alleged date of
commission is in the year 1983 for which after long 17 years. One FIR
was lodged and thereafter 23 years has already been elapsed but no
result has yet to get light of this world. He submitted that the pendency
of the instant Criminal Proceeding is liable to be quashed because the
constitutional right of speedy Criminal Trial of the litigant has been
violated in this case.
In support of his contention he has cited two decisions reported
in 2000 SCC ONLINE CAL 538 (Smt. Gita Bhowmick vs. State of
West Bengal) and (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 117 (Pankaj
Kumar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
In Smt. Gita Bhowmick's case our Hon'ble High Court has held
that :
The accused has of course a right to speedy
trial and this is now considered as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Hence continuance of
the instant criminal proceeding beyond 28
years past clearly violated Article 21 of the
Constitution. Since expeditious trial is a basic
right, it cannot be trampled or treated
particularly when the petitioner was not
responsible for the delay in the trial.
In Pankaj Kumar's case the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragrapgh 22 and
23 has held that :
22. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to
speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is an
inalienable right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. This right is applicable not only to
the actual proceedings in court but also
includes within its sweep the preceding police
investigations as well. The right to speedy trial
extends equally to all criminal prosecutions
and is not confined to any particular category
of cases.
23. In every case, where the right to speedy
trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court
has to perform the balancing act upon taking
into consideration all the attendant
circumstances, enumerated above, and
determine in each case whether the right to
speedy trial has been denied in a given case.
Where the court comes to the conclusion that
the right to speedy trial on an accused has
been infringed, the charges or the conviction,
as the case may be, may be quashed unless
the court feels that having regard to the nature
of offence and other relevant circumstances,
quashing of proceedings may not be in the
interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open
to the court to make an appropriate order as it
may deem just and equitable including fixation
of time for the conclusion of trial.
The principles laid down in Smt. Gita Bhowmick and Pankaj
Kumar is well accepted proposition of law. At the same time there is
no straightjacket formula or limitation for conclusion of the trial of a
Criminal Case. In the given cases there were no possibilities for
conclusion of the trial in near future. But, in this case the trial may
nearly concluded. On the basis of findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pankaj Kumar's case (Para 23). I feel it necessary to pass an
appropriate direction to the Learned Magistrate so that, the trial may
be concluded within a very short span.
Heard, the Learned Advocate perused the judgment of Hon'ble
high Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is true that the right
to speedy Trial is considered as a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. At the same time it has to be looked into
the finality of the trial of this case has nearly reached its end. The
evidence of PW 1and PW 2 has only been concluded from the rest of
other 09 witnesses. The delay is not solely caused due to the sloth
approach of the prosecution but there may be some other reasons for
which delay may be caused. The finality of litigation can only be
arrived after conclusion of Trial. As the Trial of this case has already
been initiated. So, at this juncture in my view the quashing of the
proceeding u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be a
justifiable regarding on the other hand the trial Court may be directed
to dispose of the matter with a strict time limit.
Hence, I find no merit to entertain the instant Criminal revision
and it is dismissed.
The CRR is disposed of with a direction that the Learned
Magistrate to conclude the trial of this case strictly within month of
April 2023. Learned Magistrate is also directed to intimate the
concerned APP for production of C.S witnesses in the time span. If it
appears to the Magistrate that the prosecution is not producing the
PWs the Magistrate is at liberty to close the evidence of the
prosecution and passed the judgment after exhausting the procedure
laid down in the law on the basis of the materials on record.
Pending CRAN applications if any, are disposed of.
Any order of stay passed by this court during the continuation
of the instant criminal revision is also vacated.
Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of
the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms
and conditions.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
