Court Dismisses Petition to Quash Proceedings; Orders Timely Conclusion of Case Despite Speedy Trial Claims.

The court dismissed the criminal revision petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Despite the petitioners' claims of delay and infringement of their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court determined that their rights were not significantly affected. The court directed the CJM to conclude the pending proceedings within one year, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence to proceed against the petitioners. All pending applications were disposed of, and any existing stay orders were vacated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 read with Sections 197/401 Cr.P.C.
2. Alleged commission of offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Delay in the filing of the final report and right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceeding (Criminal Misc Case no. 02/97) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad, for alleged offenses under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that the allegations in the complaint and final report did not constitute an offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act. They also contended that the cognizance taken by the CJM on 14.02.2017, almost 20 years after the alleged offense, was legally untenable and should be set aside.

Issue 2: Alleged Commission of Offense
The facts of the case indicate that on 03.01.1997, the Customs Preventive Unit apprehended five individuals from a train and seized foreign-made electronic goods. The petitioners, who were on duty at the time, were later arrested and released on bail. The confiscation proceedings resulted in penalties, which were appealed and eventually remanded for de-novo adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 3: Delay and Right to Speedy Trial
The petitioners emphasized the inordinate delay in the filing of the final report, causing misery and harassment. They invoked the right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in AR Antulay Vs. RS Nayak, which underscores the accused's right to a speedy trial at all stages of criminal proceedings. The petitioners argued that the prolonged delay without significant progress violated their constitutional rights and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

The opposite party countered that the delay did not prejudice the petitioners and that the Economic Offense (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1947, negated any limitation period for investigations under the Customs Act. They argued that the petitioners were involved in aiding smugglers and obstructing Customs authorities, and thus, the delay alone should not be grounds for quashing the proceedings.

Judgment:
The court considered the principles laid down in AR Antulay's case, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial encompasses all stages of a criminal proceeding. However, the court noted that these principles are not exhaustive or rigid rules. The court distinguished the present case from the Dilip Kumar Mukherjee case, where the accused had to appear in court for 25 years without significant progress. In contrast, the petitioners in this case had minimal court appearances and continued their service without disruption.

The court concluded that the petitioners' right to a speedy trial was not infringed as their personal life and liberty were not significantly affected by the delay. The court found sufficient material in the final report to proceed against the petitioners and dismissed the revision petition, directing the CJM to conclude the proceedings within one year.

Disposition:
The criminal revision was dismissed for lack of merit, and the CJM was instructed to conclude the proceedings within one year. Pending applications were also disposed of, and any stay orders were vacated.

---