TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he year 1984 thereafter, in the year 1997 he was transferred GRP, Katwa under Eastern Railway and now he has posted at Barasat Police Station, District North 24 Parganas. Petitioner No.-2 joined arm force as constable in the year 1980, in the year 1994 he was posted at GRP at Katwa, thereafter he was transferred to West Bengal Police in the year 2003. He retired on superannuation on 31.01.2017 while he was posted Champadali TOP under Bhadreswar Police Station District Hooghly. On 3rd January 1997 Inspector of Customs, Behrampur Customs Preventive Unit apprehended 05 persons from Teesta Torsa train at Kharagpur Rail Station and seized foreign made electronics goods from their possession while they were coming from New Jalpaiguri Station. The present petitioners along with one constable Santosh Kumar karmakar was on duty in Teesta Torsa train at the time from Azimganj Rail Station to Katwa Railstation. Kharagpur Rail Station is the next stoppage after Azimganj junction. 05 apprehended persons were taken into custody by the Custom Authority vide seizure case no. 1/Imp/CL/BCPU/1997 dated 03.01.1997. On 20th January 1997 the present petitioner along with Santosh Karmakar were arrested....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and should be set aside. There is inordinate delay in filing the PR/final report which cause misery and harassment to the accused. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the prayer of the petitioner and pass an order on 19.08.2018 contending inter alia that the case was filed for present and liberty is given to file P.R when the same is ready. After passing of that order Learned CJM cannot again take cognizance of the offence on the basis of delayed filing of P.R. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is required to be looked into wherein the personal penalty imposed upon the present petitioner was turned down. He further argued that the alleged commission of offence was hold in the year 1997 now near about 25 years has been elapsed wherein a criminal case is kept pending without framing of charge or initiation of trial. It is the further argument of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that, with by virtue of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AR Antulay Vs. Rs Nayak & Anr. reported in (1992) 1 SCR 225, the accused person has a right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to speedy trial includes the right of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. In support of his contention, Learned Advocate for the petitioner cited a decision of Dilip Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors reported in (2007) 4 CHN Page 272. He argued that Learned Judge, of this Hon'ble High Court has considered the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in AR Antulay's case and quashed a criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner more than 25 years ago. Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in the judgment of Dilip Kumar Mukherjee has considered the several judgments and quashed the criminal proceeding on the ground that delay is the deadliest form of denial justice and right to speedy justice is an integral component of the right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Heard the Learned Advocates perused the material on record. I also peruse the judgment laws advanced by the respective parties. It appears that the instant proceeding was initiated in the year 1997 under the provisions of Customs Act 1962. The investigation of the Customs Authority was concluded and they filed the P.R (final report) on 23.04.2015 the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and on the basis of the PR/F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and (c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of. It has been warned by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the said guidelines that these propositions are not exhaustive and these are not hard and fast rule to determined the right to speedy trial as enumerated under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. In the case of Dilip Kumar Mukherjee & Ors it appears that the criminal proceeding which was set in motion 25 years ago instead, not proceeded significantly. Considering the guidelines of AR Antulay's case Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this court has quashed the criminal proceeding. In the present case the charge is yet to be framed though we have passed more than 25 years. The peculiar question arose to determine in this case is that- when the P.R disclosed sufficient materials against the present petitioners to proceed; and fact goes to show that the criminal proceeding has not proceeded at all though it has been pending since 25 years, is it justifiable for this revisional court to quash pro....