Jharkhand High Court
Binod Shankar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 6 February, 2015
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.885 of 2014
-----
Binod Shankar Mishra son of late Dharmdeo Mishra, resident of Flat No.402,
Om Sai Apartment, Anantpur, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, at present working as District Supply Officer, Gumla, P.O. + P.S. +
District-Gumla. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ... ... Opp. Party.
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
06/06.02.2015. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved to this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Bashishth Nagar P.S. Case No.40 of 1996, corresponding to Special Case No.14 of 2005 instituted for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 161 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in view of the observation made in Cr.M.P. No.109 of 2012, which had filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of right to denial to speedy justice.
The order, which was recorded on 05.07.2013 in Cr.M.P. No.109 of 2012, needs to be reproduced which is hereunder:-
"First Information Report of Bashishth Nagar P.S. Case No.40 of 1996 was registered on 08.12.1996 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 161 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Almost after 10 years, when the charge sheet was submitted, charges were framed on 20th April, 2006. Since then only three witnesses out of sixteen, have been examined. It was informed that four witnesses have already died. Thus, it does appear that nine more witnesses are still to be examined, who happen to be the official witnesses, whose, attendance can be secured by the Vigilance easily.
Therefore, keeping in view that the prosecution was launched in the year 1996 and since then 17 years have elapsed but still the prosecution has not been able to examine its witnesses, rather nine more witnesses are still to be examined, six months' time is being given to the prosecution to examine its all witnesses. If by that time, the witnesses are not examined, it would be open for the court to pass order, which it would deem fit and proper.
Accordingly, with the observation made hereinabove, this application stands disposed of."
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even after a year of passing such order, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution, though the court has taken steps for securing attendance of the witnesses. The petitioner's future on account of delay in trial is at stake, as the matter relating to promotion is being not taken up on account of pendency of this case.
It be stated that it had earlier been recorded that the case had been lodged in the year 1996 and even after lapse of 17 years, the prosecution had not been able to examine all the witnesses and in that event, the order was passed that if within six months' time, the prosecution fails to examine all his witnesses, it will be open for the court to pass order, which it would be deemed fit and proper. But the court seems to be quite oblivious of the said order, which is not appreciable at all.
However, regard being had to the facts and circumstances, further four months' time is allowed to the prosecution to examine rest of the witnesses, failing which, the court, after expiry of four months, would be at liberty to close the prosecution and to proceed with the matter.
With this observation, this application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned at the cost of the petitioner.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/