2003 (4) TMI 129 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal complaint under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and Section 85(i) and (ii) of the Gold Control Act.
2. Delay in trial and violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal complaint filed against him for offenses under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and Section 85(i) and (ii) of the Gold Control Act. The complaint was based on the recovery of Indian currency worth Rs. 1.80 lacs and 50 gold biscuits with foreign markings from the petitioner's car. The petitioner was apprehended on 7-11-1986, and the complaint was filed on 2-1-1987 after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Collector of Customs. Despite being released on bail, the petitioner faced prolonged pre-charge evidence proceedings, with only two out of twelve witnesses examined over 15 years.

2. Delay in Trial and Violation of Article 21:
The petitioner argued that the delay in trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He cited several judgments to support his plea, emphasizing that out of 49 hearing dates, the prosecution sought adjournments on 37 occasions. The petitioner contended that such delays were attributable to the prosecution and not him. The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments to analyze the right to a speedy trial, including P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, which reaffirmed the principles laid down in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.

Analysis of Delay and Attribution:
The court examined the summary of order sheets and found that the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution. Factors such as the presiding Magistrate's leave, lawyer strikes, and the petitioner's requests for adjournments contributed to the delay. The court noted that systemic delays, including the workload of the ACMM, also played a role. The Supreme Court's observations in P. Ramachandra Rao's case emphasized that each case must be assessed on its facts and that systemic delays must be considered.

Conclusion and Directions:
The court concluded that quashing the criminal proceedings solely based on the delay would be unjust, given the nature of the offense and the reasons for the delay. Instead, the court directed the ACMM to expedite the hearing on the framing of charges and conclude the trial by 31st December 2003. If the trial could not be concluded by the specified date, the ACMM was required to submit a report explaining the reasons for the delay.

Final Order:
The petition was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within a specified timeframe, ensuring that justice was served without further unnecessary delays.