TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The allegations against the petitioner, as can be culled out from the complaint, are that during the course of search at his residential premises on 15 May, 1985 by the officers of the Enforcement Dte., some incriminating documents were seized, which revealed that the petitioner had violated various provisions of the FERA inasmuch: (i) he had a right to receive from foreign principals in Saudi Arabia substantial amounts of foreign exchange in the years 1981-1985 but did not take any action to recover the same and he same remained unrealised, committing an offence under Section 16(1) of the FERA; (ii) made payments of substantial sums of money for the purchase of air tickets in the years 1980-85....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date and was sent to judicial custody, where he remained till 5 September, 1986, on which date he was admitted to bail. Thereafter till the filing of this petition on 23 September, 1987, only one witness was partly examined by the prosecution. Hence the present petition. 4. The petition is resisted by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate. In the affidavit in opposition no explanation for the delay in adducing evidence has been furnished except making a vague averment that the process of substitution of the complainant, on account of his death, consumed a lot of time. 5. I have heard Mr. Dinesh Mathur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned counsel for the Enforcement Dte. I have also called for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and witnesses and (iii) in the event of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, has the prosecution justified and explained the delay. However, the Court also cautioned that though ordinarily speaking, where the Court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, shall be quashed but this is not the only course open and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of offence, it is open to the Court to make such other appropriate order, including an order to conclude the trial within a fixed period, as may be deemed fit and equitable. 9. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. The Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as reflected in the order sheets maintained in the case, reflect a sorry state of affairs. The callous attitude of the complainant in prosecuting the case, after filing the complaint, is amply demonstrated in the following orders passed by the trial court: "19.7.94 - Present: Shri S.P. Ahluwalia, PP for Enforcement Accused on bail with counsel No PW is present. Seeks Adjournment. Come up for P.E. on 15 and 16.12.1994." "15.12.94: Present: Shri S.P. Ahluwalia, PP for Enforcement. Accused on bail. No PW is present. PP seeks adjournment. He further says that witnesses will not be available even on 16.12.1994 and prays that the case may be adjourned to some other date. The other party has no objection. Adjourned. Date 16.12.1994 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12.1997." "19.2.98- Present Shri Navin Matta SPP for Enf. Accused on bail. PW1 is present. However, the case is adjourned at the request of Ld. SPP on the ground that he wants to move an application for substituting the complainant as the complainant Shri A.P. Nandi has already expired. As such the case is adjourned for P.E. for 30.4.98." "9.11.98- Present: Shri Navin Matta, SPP for Enf. Accused on bail with counsel Shri S.S. Sindhi. The accused has reported back in compliance with the order of permission. PW SC Dhamija is present but no time is left. As such the case to come for P.E. on 1/2.2.99." 12. From the aforenoted orders it is evident that despite last opportunity having been granted to the prosecution on 17 Nov....