Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rakesh Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2023

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 1ST OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 15544 OF 2023

BETWEEN:-

RAKESH PANDEY, S/O LATE SHRI GANESH
MANI PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE
SAGAUNI, POST BHARATPUR, TEHSIL RAMPUR
NAIKIN, POLICE STATION RAMPUR NAIKIN,
DISTRICT SIDHI, MADHYA PRADESH.

. .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAVAN, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH.

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIDHI,
DISTRICT SIDHI, MADHYA PRADESH.

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THROUGH
POLICE STATION RAMPUR NAIKIN,
DISTRICT SIDHI, MADHYA PRADESH.

......RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 13.09.2023

Pronounced on: 01.11.2023
2

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:

ORDER

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is claiming that the FIR registered against him vide Crime No. 34/2006 on 13.02.2006 under Section 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sessions trial initiated on the basis of the said crime vide ST No. 15/2017 be quashed only on the ground of delay in trial.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a crime was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 34/2006. Thereafter, charge sheet and the committal of the case was produced before the Magistrate on 15.06.2009. The said proceeding was pending before the Committal Magistrate from 15.06.2009 till 30.11.2015 for argument before charge. Afterwards, on 17.03.2016, the then District & Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi where it was pending for trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under such a circumstance when the trial has not been concluded after such a long lapse of time i.e. 17 years whereas the offence was registered in the year 2006, the trial can be quashed on the ground of delay. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in (2008) 16 SCC 117 - Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2009) 3 SCC 355 -Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and (1992) 1 SCC 225 - Abdul Rehman Antulay & others vs. R.S. Nayak & another.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

progress of trial, it can be said that it is not a case in which the delay caused in trial is intentional. The delay in trial occurred because of non- production of original documents or the report of Handwriting Expert by the prosecution. He submitted that as per the status report received, 17 witnesses have already been examined and the remaining seven witnesses, as per the assurance given by the trial court, would be examined within a period of four months. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid and the fact that the trial court has sought four months time, which is not too much, to conclude the trial, it is not a fit case to quash the trial on the ground of delay and the petition being without any substance deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. As per the allegations made, the government officials including petitioner committed dishonest misappropriation in distribution of food grains to the labours engaged for construction of the Stop Dam. The food grains were to be distributed to the labours as per the scheme sponsored by the Government i.e. "food grains in lieu of work".

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as emerged in the present case, this Court called the status report of the trial from the trial court concerned, which has been received on 19 th September, 2023.

8. In line with the status report dated 11.09.20223, as yet, total 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined. On 19.06.2023 a witness i.e. Indramani Dwivedi appeared before the court, but in absence of original documents (not produced by the police), the statement of the said witness could not be recorded and after that the case was being continuously fixed for production of original documents.

9. The status report distinctly reveals that continuous efforts are being made and direction has been given to the SHO of the police station Rampur Naikin by the trial court to produce the original documents. Not only this, a letter was also separately written on 17.07.2023 to the said SHO but neither response was filed nor documents produced. Following that, a letter was also written to the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi directing him to produce the original documents, but nothing has been done and documents have not been produced. From the status report it is also evident that the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi also directed the SHO, Rampur Naikin by letter dated 24.08.2023 to produce the original documents. The status report indicates that the original documents were sent to the Handwriting Expert for obtaining his opinion but the said Expert has not sent back the said documents with his opinion. The status report dated 11.09.2023 reveals that seven witnesses are yet to be examined and for that purpose the trial court concerned has sought four months time.

10. I have perused the record of the case, especially the status report sent by the trial court concerned. From the status report, it is precise that initially the progress in trial was not up to the mark but thereafter even during outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19, statements of witnesses have been recorded and till September, 2023, statements of 17 witnesses have been recorded and the court has sought four months further time to conclude the trial. The Supreme Court time and again in many cases considered the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and observed that it is the right of an accused of speedy trial, but still there is no outer limit prescribed for concluding the proceedings. The Supreme Court has also observed that in case of inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, the court has discretion under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding having regard to attendant circumstances and relevant factors.

11. Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and after having regard to the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the cases on which the petitioner has placed reliance, I am of the opinion that although there is some delay in conducting trial but that delay is not inordinate for the reason that the case was committed to the competent court in the year 2015 and thereafter almost for two years pandemic COVID-19 got adversely affected the whole country and afterwards the court is making continuous efforts to conclude the trial. In the present case, when the court itself is asking four months time to conclude the trial and only seven witnesses are to be recorded, I find it fit and proper to give time to the trial court to make all endeavour to finalize the proceedings and conclude the trial.

12. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing trial court i.e. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sidhi to instruct the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur Naikin, Sidhi to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of the order and take all possible steps to give final shape to the trial i.e. ST No. 15/2017 (Crime No. 34/2006). If it is not done, the petitioner can take chance to file a petition again.

13. Registry is also directed to communicate this order to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sidhi.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA 2023.11.03 10:48:25 +05'30'

Raghvendra