9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and Section 9 of the CST Act along with the allegations of Forgery, Breach of Trust and use of False Documents. From the FIR, the Chargesheet and the Charges which have been framed, it is evident that the allegations made against the Petitioner are serious in nature. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers constitutional right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law which should be reasonable, fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no case made out for quashing of the Chargesheet as well as of the FIR.
Conclusion - There was no basis for quashing the FIR or Chargesheet. The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings to ensure a timely conclusion.
Petition disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect manner before the Court. The Petitioner had rightly issued 'C' Forms to Mahadev Engineering Works and the Form was used by it in the same Financial Year 1993-94. 6. It is submitted that during the Bail, the Investigating Officer enquired about the said fact and on the Report submitted by him, the Bail was granted to the Petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the Petitioner to prove any Cheating or Breach of Trust of the Government revenue. There is no misuse of 'C' Forms issued in the name of the Proprietorship Firm of the Petitioner. No violation of DST Act and CST Act was committed by the Petitioner and there is no evidence for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, 1860. 8. Likewise, there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed against the Petitioner for the offences which are serious in nature. 13. Submissions heard and record perused. 14. It is not in dispute that the FIR had been registered in the year 1999 for the offences, punishable under Sections 406/420/468/471/120B of IPC, 1860 and Section 50 (1) of the DST Act and Section 9 of the CST Act along with the allegations of Forgery, Breach of Trust and use of False Documents. From the FIR, the Chargesheet and the Charges which have been framed, it is evident that the allegations made against the Petitioner are serious in nature. 15. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0119/1979, the Apex Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Complaint Case. Consequently, the Chargesheet filed in the Complaint Case was quashed. 17. The Apex Court in the matter of Santosh Dev, (supra), it was observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognises the constitutional right of speedy trial. It was also noted that the trial was not concluded within four years but in terms of Section 245 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was inserted in 1998, mandated that the trial be completed in four years. 18. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the FIR got filed in the year 1999, in which the Chargesheet came to be filed on 10.11.2003 and the Charges were framed in 2021. However, since then, testimony of 5 witnesses, out of 17 prosecution witnesses, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
