1. This application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the trial proceedings arose out of crime No. 1742 of 1973, of P.S Kotwali, Bareilly. In this case on 8-4-19941 had granted the learned Government Advocate three weeks to file countenaffidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet although more than 8 months have expired. In the circumstances I presume the allegations in the petition to be correct and I am disposing of this application finally.
2. The applicant’ was a Revenue Inspector in Municipal Board, Bareilly since 1956 arid he has put in 37:years of service.
3. On 30-9-1973 a first information report under Section 408/468/420, I.P.C, was lodged against him by the Executive Officer, Mu nicipal Board, Bareilly vide annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The applicant is on bail in the said case.
4. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of this application it is alleged;that the case was first en quired by the Kotwali’ police but later on it was entrusted to CBCID Bareilly” for investigation and the CBCID, Bareilly submitted 42 charge sheets on 20-8-1976 in the Coiirt of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in crime No. 1742 of 1973. Following these 42 chargesheets the trial proceedings started against the applicant, the details of which are given in the chart which is annexure-2 to the affidavit in support of the application in para 7 of the affidavit in support of thepetition it isstated that the applicant has been acquitted in two cases and he is facing trial in the either 40 cases. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit it is stated that from the charge-sheets referred to in annexure-2 it appears that the charges were framed against the applicant in 1978 and 1979 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. Thereafter these cases were transferred from one Court to another causing felt of inconvenience and difficulties to the’ applicant. A series of adjournments have been granted to the prosecution by different Courts to produce its witnesses/The last witness was produced and exam ined over a decade ago. The trial proceedings have been unduly delayed by the prosecution fonwant of evidence. Photo copy of-the order-Sheets are annexures-3 and 4 to the affidavit. In paragraph 9 it is stated that: ultimately the Jvlunsif Magistrate VIII closed the prosecution evidence in certain cases in the year 1988 in the presence of the Special Counsel for CBCID. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it is stated that the Munsiff Magistrate VI closed the evidence in 1989. In paragraph 11 it is stated that although prosecution evidence was closed and state ment of the applicant was recorded as far back as in May, 1988 but the trial proceedings have not been concluded yet. The prosecution forone pretext or the other is dragging on thetrial proceedings against the applicant: Speedy trial is a fundamental right of the applicant which he has been denied. By order dated 19-8-1992 the Judicial Magistrate III refused to grant any further opportunity vide annexure-5 to the affidavit. The order dated 19-8-1992 states that the prosecution has been granted 100 dates for producing its evidence. This shows the utter callousness and negligence on the part of the prosecution.
5. It is now well settled that right to speedy trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As held by the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 Crl LJ 1036 (SC). “No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair or just’ and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonable expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.” Similar view has also been taken in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, 1979 Crl LJ 1045 (SC).
6. In the present case while the first information report was filed in 1973 the trial has not yet been completed. This is clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The prosecution cannot drag on the trial for an unreasonably long period and if it does so, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the proceedings of the cases relating to crime No. 1742 of 1973 of P.S Kotwali, District Bareilly (referred to as annexure-2) against the applicant. No order as to costs.
7. Application allowed.