2001 (2) TMI 1055 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in investigation and trial.
2. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution due to delay.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for abetment charges against the two lady appellants.
4. Quashing of criminal proceedings against the two lady appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Investigation and Trial:
The appellants contended that there was an undue delay of 11 years from the filing of the FIR in 1986 to the submission of the charge-sheet in 1997, which violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The investigation was completed in 1990, but the sanction to prosecute was obtained only in 1993, and the charge-sheet was filed in 1994. The trial progressed slowly, with the case reaching the stage of hearing preliminary arguments by 1997. The court acknowledged that the delay in criminal proceedings is a systemic issue and emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach, considering each case on its own facts.

2. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution Due to Delay:
The appellants argued that the delay caused unbearable mental trauma, fear psychosis, tension, financial losses, and humiliation, thus violating their fundamental rights under Article 21. The court referred to previous judgments, including *Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar* and *State of Andhra Pradesh vs. PV Pavithran*, which recognized that undue delay in investigation and trial could impair the accused's rights. However, the court noted that there were no inflexible guidelines for speedy investigation and each case must be considered on its own facts.

3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Abetment Charges Against the Two Lady Appellants:
The court found that the materials were insufficient to prove that the two elderly lady appellants intentionally abetted the public servant in acquiring disproportionate assets. The court reasoned that it would be unfair to compel the two octogenarian ladies to undergo a long trial with no reasonable prospect of conviction, considering their advanced age and the volume of evidence to be presented.

4. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Against the Two Lady Appellants:
The court decided to quash the criminal proceedings against the two lady appellants due to the insufficient evidence of abetment and the unlikelihood of their surviving the lengthy trial. The court emphasized that it would be unreasonable to subject them to the ordeal of a protracted trial given their advanced age and the improbability of a conviction.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the two lady appellants were allowed, and the criminal proceedings against them were quashed. However, the appeals filed by the appellant-public servant and his wife were dismissed, and the trial against them was to proceed. The judgment highlighted the importance of a speedy trial and the need for a realistic approach in dealing with delays in criminal proceedings, while also considering the specific circumstances of each case.