2008 (7) TMI 1062 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of chargesheet and proceedings.
2. Determination of appellant's age at the time of the alleged offense.
3. Right to a speedy investigation and trial.

Summary:

1. Quashing of Chargesheet and Proceedings:
The appeal arises from the High Court's dismissal of a petition u/s 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings in Special Case No.3 of 1991. The chargesheet filed on 22nd February 1991, implicated twelve persons, including the appellant, for offenses u/s 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A), and 34 IPC, and Sections 5(1)(c)(d) along with Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Sections 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the chargesheet prima facie disclosed the commission of offenses by the appellant.

2. Determination of Appellant's Age:
The appellant argued that he was a minor at the time of the alleged offenses in 1981, being born on 18th September 1963, and thus could not be proceeded against. The High Court rejected this plea, noting the appellant failed to produce any document proving his date of birth. The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the decision on the right to a speedy trial.

3. Right to a Speedy Investigation and Trial:
The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial u/s Article 21, which encompasses all stages of criminal prosecution, including investigation. The Court noted the undue delay in the case: the FIR was lodged on 12th May 1987, the chargesheet was filed on 22nd February 1991, and no trial proceedings had commenced by April 1999. The Court found the delay unjustifiable and not attributable to the appellant. Citing precedents, the Court held that the prolonged investigation and trial violated the appellant's right to a speedy trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, recognizing the extreme mental stress and strain endured due to the prolonged delay.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings against the appellant in the criminal case arising out of FIR No.78 of 1987 were quashed.