TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 120 (b) IPC read with Sections 420, 409 IPC read with 34 IPC in the year 1999. 2. It is complained by the petitioner herein that charges have not been framed by the Trial Court since 1999. It is also stated that the calendar case has been pending without any effective progress. The petitioner claimed that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 830 had held that speedy trial is a right of every accused and if there is unwarranted delay it would be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and such trial proceedings can be terminated. The petitioner also stated that he had resigned from the post of Director of Anubhav Agro Housing De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years, and further offering attractive dividends for fixed deposits and collected substantial sums of money from the public and thereafter had misappropriated the same. 5. It had been very specifically stated that the petitioner was one of the Directors of Anubhav Plantations Limited from 14.10.1995 to 07.02.1997. It had been further stated that the petitioner was also responsible for the misappropriation of the amount collected from the public. It had been further stated that the statements recorded from two witnesses namely, Jeyakumar, Assistant Registrar of Companies, Chennai and Nirmala Krishnamurthy, Assistant Inspection Officer, Office of the Regional Director of Inspection and Investigation, Department of Company Affairs, Shastri B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out that in a connected criminal proceedings, wherein the Registrar of Companies was Prosecuting Agency and the petitioner had been arrayed as A8 in E.O.C.C.No.21 of 2010, by judgment dated 19.11.2010 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate / E.O.1, Egmore, had acquitted the petitioner herein on all charges, primarily holding as a fact that "as far as A8 is concerned he has resigned from the directorship on 16.09.1996 itself and he is not the officer indefault for the said violation, for name sake he was called as Director.” 8. The learned counsel pointed out that the allegations are the same in the instant case also and since a specific finding had been given that the petitioner was called director only for name s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....51; (1) length of delay, (2) the justification for the delay, (3) the accused-s assertion of his right to speedy trial, and (4) prejudice caused to the accused by such delay.” (SCC pp. 639~40, para 92)” 10. The learned counsel therefore stated that further proceedings in C.C.No.1067 of 1999 should be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The learned counsel pointed out that for the past 22 years there has been no progress at all in the case. Even charges have not been framed. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments and examined the records in the case. 12. It is a fact that C.C.No.1067 of 1999 is pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the past nearly 22 years. The petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the matter has been pending for the past 22 years, but as pointed out by the Constitution Bench, the reasons for the delay will have to be examined. The prosecution has claimed justification stating that some accused had died, some accused are absconding, one of the accused has gone abroad and such other factors. 15. The prosecution cannot commence the trial if the accused make a determined effort to scuttle the trial process by alternatively absconding themselves. The accused will then have to face the consequences of delay in the trial process. 16.I do agree that every accused has a right of speedy trial and unwarranted delay violates the fundamental right guaranteed Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But at the same time, it mus....