Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
C. Sivakumar And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 March, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ2337
ORDER
1. The petitioner in Crl. Petn. No. 58/1990 is the accused in C.C. No. 15/89. The petitioners in the other petitions are accused in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1989 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. They have filed these petitions to quash the proceedings u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. on the ground that though the cases have been pending for over 14 years no progress is made in the trial of the cases.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheela Barse v. Union of India, . The Supreme Court has pointed out (Para 12) :
"If an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental right to speedy trial would be violated unless, of course, the trial is held up on account of some interim order passed by a superior Court or the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. The consequence of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right."
3. A learned single Judge of this Court in G. Balchand Varma v. State of A.P. (1985) 2 Andh LT 433 has held that "the continuance of the three criminal cases from 1979 onwards for a period of over six years during which the prosecution has not examined single witness is clear abuse of process of law and has resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioner. It is, therefore, a prominently fit case for quashing the proceedings u/S. 482, Cr.P.C." The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that during the period of 14 years only one witness i.e., P.W. 1 was examined and no further progress is made in the case and so the proceedings may be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused have also contributed for the delay in the trial of the case and so they cannot take advantage of their own lapse and ask for quashing the proceedings.
4. In order to find out the reasons as to why this inordinate delay occurred the extracts of the docket sheets of the cases which are in the Court records are verified. The learned counsel for the petitioners also analysed from the docket sheets the various reasons for the delay and has prepared separate statements under each head.
5. The Station House Officer, Malkapuram registered F.I.R. in Crime No. 6/1975 on 19-1-1975 against these accused and others, in total 8 accused, for offences u/Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B, I.P.C. Two charge-sheets were filed in the concerned Magistrate Court some time in the year 1976. The accused were asked to appear on 30-6-1976 before the Court. Thereafter the police took time till about February, 1977 for filing copies of documents. The charges were framed on 9-6-1977. The trial commenced on 2-11-1977 when the Chief examination of P.W. 1 started. There is considerable delay in examination of P.W. 1. It is stated that in one case he has been examined fully i.e., in C.C. 15/89 and in other case still his cross-examination is not completed. The case was being transferred from one Court to another due to change in territorial jurisdiction or some other reasons. Some times some of the accused were also absent but they were filing petitions to condone their absence. In these circumstances on 3-10-1986 the then Magistrate who was trying the case obviously being disgusted with the slow progress of the case issued notice to the police that if they do not produce witnesses prosecution evidence will be closed and posted the case to 17-10-1986. But on that day as the prosecution failed to produce any witnesses the learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and posted the case to 24-10-1986 for the examination of the accused u/S. 313, Cr.P.C. But again the prosecution filed petition to reopen the case and the Court allowed that petition and issued summons to P.W. 1 and the same old thing is going on.
6. An analysis of the docket sheet would show the following reasons for the delay :
(i) delay in filing the copies of the documents;
(ii) delay in producing the witnesses;
(iii) delay on account of the fact that the A.P.P. was absent or was taking adjournments.
(iv) delay on the part of the accused;
(v) delay on account of transfer of the cases from one Court to another.
7. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor some times the accused have also contributed to the delay. It seems in the year 1981 they have filed petition to include P.W. 1 also as one of the accused and that petition was pending for about 8 months and on some occasions they were absent. During these 14 years the case had undergone nearly 350 adjournments in about 7 Courts and about 26 Magistrates have handled these cases but excepting examining P.W. 1 nothing further had taken place. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the entries in the docket argued that on 19 adjournments P.W. 1 was absent, A.P.P. was absent on 23 adjournments and nothing took place on 156 days of hearing. The prosecution was not at all taking any interest in either producing witnesses or completing their evidence. The accused might have also contributed for the delay, for some time. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that one more opportunity may be given to the prosecution to produce witnesses and complete the cases, having regard to the progress of the case referred to above I feel that no useful purpose will be served by giving any further opportunity to the prosecution to produce witnesses. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that to make them still to face prosecution amounts to harassment and abuse of process of Court.
8. One of the accused i.e., A. 2 in these two cases has filed Crl. P. 650/1989 for quashing the proceedings. My learned brother Bhaskara Rao, J. quashed the proceedings against him on the ground that in all these 14 years trial was not over and in these circumstances he found that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Following the same reason, the proceedings are hereby quashed against the petitioners and the petitions are allowed.
9. Before parting with this case I have to point out that one of the reasons that had contributed to the delay in the cases is that the cases have been transferred frequently from one Court to another on the ground of change of territorial jurisdiction or some other administrative grounds. The Sessions Judge before transferring criminal cases from one Court to another may keep in mind the delay which may be caused on account of frequent transfer of cases and avoid frequent transfer of cases on administrative reasons unless it is absolutely necessary in the interests of justice. The Chief Judicial Magistrates who are exercising supervision over the Magistrate's Courts should also watch the progress in the trial of such cases pending for a long time in the Magistrate's Courts and see that such abnormal delays are avoided.
10. Petitions allowed.