Hari Chand vs Union Of India And Ors.
1988 Latest Caselaw 280 Del

JUDGMENT

H.C. Goel, J.

(1) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. directed against the impugned orders of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated July 6, 1982 dismissing the application of the accused petitioner seeking his discharge in the case on the ground that the sanction for prosecuting the accused/petitioner was illegal as also against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated August 19, 1986 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against the said order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Besides challenging these two orders of the courts below the petitioner has also taken an independent ground for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in case No. 532-A/3 of 1979, Customs v. Zafar Mohd, that there has been undue and inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial of the case.

(2) Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, confines himself to the challenge made to the proceedings in the court of the learned Acmm on the ground that there has been inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The complaint was no doubt filed by the customs department in the case as far back as on May 6, 1966. The record, however, reveals that 35 witnesses of the prosecution were examined at the pre-charge stage. The charge against 43 accused persons was framed on June 4, 1969. Some of the accused persons filed a revision petition against the framing of charge against them to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge some time in 1969. A reference was made in the case of some of the accused persons by the Additional Sessions Judge recommending their discharge in this case. This recommendation was, however, not accepted by the High Court and the revision petition of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by this Court on May 2, 1974. The records of the case were, however, not made available to the trial court for more than one year. They were received by that court only on June 2, 1975. Thereafter, the presence of all the accused persons could not be secured. Some of the accused persons absented themselves from the case. It was only on January 5, 1977 that the presence of all the accused persons could be secured. It may be stated here that out of the 43 accused persons 20 are living at places other than Delhi, including one at Bombay. It is also the admitted position that an application had been moved on behalf of some of the accused persons by their counsel Shri K.G. Bhagat before the trial court on February 19, 1977 which was dismissed on May 27, 1977 and the proceedings remained held up during that period on account of the pendency of that application. Thereafter, some accused or the other absented on many of the dates because of which also no proceedings could be taken by the court. On February 17, 1979 one of the accused Mangi Lal Jain by name died. Similarly, Jagdish Sharma another co-accused of the petitioner was reported dead on July 21, 1979. The verification about the alleged facts of their deaths also took some time. On some of the dates various presiding officers who handed this case happened to be on leave. Another application had also been moved on behalf of some accused persons under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on May 27, 1982 which was later dismissed on July 6, 1982 and meanwhile the proceedings remained stayed. Yet another application was moved by some accused persons on August 3, 1982 when the proceedings remained stayed by the order of the Sessions Court and the file was received back by the trial court from the Sessions Court as late as in October, 1986. Again, another revision petition was filed by accused Hari Chand, the present petitioner, in this Court seeking his discharge. This was filed some time in December, 1986. The. proceedings remained stayed for awaiting the result of that petition by this Court. Last order was passed by the trial court on May 5, 1987 adjourning the case to August 18, 1987 for awaiting the records of the case. It appears that the revision petition filed to this Court was by that time dismissed. Seven witnesses of the prosecution were cross-examined after the charge was framed. Thus, the history of the case shows that most of the delay in the conclusion of the trial is attributable to the accused persons. It cannot be said that the prosecution has been laxed or has not taken any due and reasonable steps in prosecuting the case The petition is accordingly dismissed at the show cause stage.