Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.24 seconds)S.G. Nain vs Union Of India on 2 August, 1991
6. Mr. Roy also referred to a single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Sengupta v. The State of West Bengal reported in 1994 Cr. LR (Cal) 359, where the learned Single Judge, relying on the case of S.G. Nain v. Union of India, 1992 Cri LJ 560 (SC) (supra), amongst other, interfered with the course of the proceeding and quashed the proceeding as the proceeding was pending for about 18 years. Here also the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was involved.
Section 197 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bihar State Co-Operative Marketing ... vs Uma Shankar Sharan And Anr on 18 August, 1992
7. Mr. Roy laid special emphasis upon the decision on the case of State of Bihar v. Uma Shankar Kotriwal, , (supra) and particularly in paragraph 3 of the decision at page 642. There was delay of 20 years and the Apex Court held that such protraction itself means considerable harassment to the accused not only monetarily but also by way of constant attention to the case and repeated appearances in Court, apart from anxiety. The Supreme Court also held that it may well be that the respondents themselves were responsible in a large measure for the slow pace of the ease inasmuch as quite a few orders made by the trial Magistrate were challenged in high Courts, but then there has to be a limit to the period for which criminal litigation is allowed to go on at the trial stage. In this view of the matter we do not consider the present case a proper one for our interference in spite of the fact that we feel that the allegations disclosed the commission of an offence which we regard as quite serious. With this observation the Apex Court quashed the proceeding. This is a case in connection with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.