Bombay High Court
Pramod Waman Kadam And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 March, 2023
Author: R. N. Laddha
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
bipin prithiani
1
2-wp-748.22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2022
Pramod Waman Kadam & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
******
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Petitioners.
Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Vijay Patil, Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Mumbai.
******
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 1st MARCH, 2023 P.C. :- . Heard Mr. Priyal Sarda, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of P. Ramachandra Rao v/s. State of Karnataka, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 607, particularly, paragraph 21, he would urge that the trial has not concluded since last 20 years, the petitioners need to be discharged. This Court must pronounce the acquittal of the petitioners having regard to the provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. In the aforesaid background, we have appreciated the very gamut of the matter. The fact remains that the present prosecution is being faced by the petitioners for an offences punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 05:02:10 ::: bipin prithiani 2 2-wp-748.22.doc Sections 409, 418, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 380, 381, 457 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. It is claimed by the petitioners that the charge came to be farmed against the accused persons on 27th August, 2012 and on 20th February, 2017 though the trial Court has started recording evidence of PW1, till this date, the recording of testimony of PW1 is yet to be concluded. According to Mr. Sarda, the prosecution has cited 1283 witnesses, whereas the total accused are 25, out of which 2 have already expired, whereas one of them is on death bed having suffered paralysis.
4. He would, as such, urge that since the right to speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused, this Court must declare the petitioners' acquitted of the charge framed against them.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid claim, this Court has called progress report from the Judicial Officer manning the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is brought to our notice by the said Judicial Officer that though the recording of the evidence of PW1 commenced in 2017, for one or the other reasons adjournments were sought on the side of the prosecution viz the non availability of the Investigating Officer, the APP raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, etc. In this background, the learned APP would urge that the delay in concluding the trial cannot be solely attributed to the prosecution as each of the accused have moved for discharge before the Court below. In calculated manner, the ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 05:02:10 ::: bipin prithiani 3 2-wp-748.22.doc adjournments were sought before the trial Court thereby delaying the trial. She would further urge that the prosecution is willing to conclude the trial in time bound manner as she has placed an oral assurance on behalf of Mr.Vijay Patil, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, that all possible cooperation shall be extended in the matter of securing presence of the witnesses, so also all possible assistant shall be extended to the concerned APP in the expeditious disposal of the trial.
6. There appears to be substance in the submissions made by the learned APP. In the aforesaid background, we hereby take on record the assurance given to this Court that a dedicated team shall be provided at the disposal of the APP conducting the trial in ACB Case No. 68 of 2002, including that of the availability of the then Investigating Officer Mr. Pardesi. In view of aforesaid assurance given by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, we direct the trial Court to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within period of six months from today.
7. We further direct the presiding officer to submit the progress report of the aforesaid trial after every four weeks. If so required, the Court can consider the request of the presiding officer for grant of extension provided a case to that effect is made out.
8. We direct the said presiding officer to bring the order of this Court to the notice of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, so that the Judge presiding over the aforesaid trial, if can be relieved of part of the ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 05:02:10 ::: bipin prithiani 4 2-wp-748.22.doc judicial work, if so required, which call of course shall be at sole discretion of the Principal Judge of City Civil Court.
9. As such, we adjourned this petition for further consideration on 6th April, 2023, the date on which we expect the progress report from the presiding officer of the Special Court who is dealing with the aforesaid trial.
10. We further direct the counsel for petitioner, so also the Officer who shall be deputed by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, as assured herein above, to place the copy of this order before the Special Judge, in any case, on 14th March, 2023.
11. Stand over to 6th April, 2023.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BIPIN Digitally signed by BIPIN
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
DHARMENDER Date: 2023.03.10 12:33:32
PRITHIANI +0530
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 05:02:10 :::