MAHENDRA LAL DAS versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 157 · Decided: 12-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHENDRA LAL DAS 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sections 5(J)(e) and 5(2)-FIR 
lodged-Non-grant of sanction and non-initiation of prosecution even after 12 
years of lodging FIR-Opinion of Government authorities that sanction could 
be futile-Failure of prosecution to explain the delay-Quashing of proceed-
ings sought-Held, in the .facts of the case proceedings quashed-In cases of 
corruption the amount involved is not material but speedy justice is the 
mandate of Constitution-Right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages viz. 
Investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial-inordinate long 
delay can be taken as proof of prejudice-Constitution of India, 1950-Section 
21. 
FIR was lodged against appellant under Sections 5(2) and S(l)(e) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having misappropriated Rs. 
50,600. After investigation, when Investigating Officer submitted a pro-
posal for grant of sanction the authorities felt that the grant of sanction 
would prove to be a futile attempt on the part of the Department. When 
no prosecution was launched against the appellant even after 12 years, he 
filed writ petition for quashing the proceedings. High Court dismissed the 
petition on the ground that mere delay in granting sanction had not 
prejudiced the appellant. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
case the proceedings against the appellant ne quashed, as permitting 
further prosecution would be travesty of justice and a mere ritual or 
G 
formality so far as the prosecution agency is concerned, and unnecessary 
burden as regards the courts. [161-H; 162-A] 
1.2. In the present case the prosecution has failed to explain the 
delay in granting the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-accused. 
157 
H 
A 
B 
c 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
The auth!>rities of the respondent-state also appear to be not satisfied 
about the merits of the case and were convinced that despite granting of 
sanction the trial would be a mere formality and exercise in futility. 
(161-C] 
1.3. In cases of corruption the amount involved is not material but 
speedy justice is the mandate of the Constitut~on being in the interests of 
the accused as well as that of the society. Cases relating to corruption are 
to be dealt with swiftly, promptly and without delay. As and when delay 
is found to have been caus~d during the investigation, inquiry or trial, the 
concerned appropriate authorities are under an obligation to find out and 
deal with the persons responsible for such delay. The delay can be 
attributed either to the connivance of the authorities with the accused or 
used as a lever to pressurise an1 harass the accused as is alleged to have 
been done to the appellant in this case. [161-D-E] 
-
D 
Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR (1994) SC 948, 
E 
relied on. 
2.1. The ·right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages, namely, 
stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. While 
determining the alleged delay, the court has to decide each case on its 
facts having regard to all attending circumstances including nature of 
offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work-load of the court 
. . 
concerned, prevailing local conditions, etc. Every delay may not be taken 
as causing prejudice to the accused but the alleged delay has to be 
considered in the totality ·or the circumstances and the general conspectus 
F · of the case. Inordinate long delay· can be taken' as a presentlve proof of 
prejudice. [160-H; 161-A·B] 
G 
H 
2.2. It is true that interference by the court at the investigation 
stage is not called for. However, it is equally true that the investigating 
age0cy cannot be given'the latitude of protracting the conclusion of the 
investigation without any limit 'or time. It is in the inte~t of all con· 
cerned that guilt or innocence ofthe accused is determined ~ quickly as · 
possible in the circumstances. (160-F-G] 
A'bdul Re_hman Antulay & 01S. v. R.S. Nayak & Am:, [i992] 1 SCC 
225, referred to. . 
' 
MAHENDRA LAL DAS v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 
159 
CRIMINAL A~PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1038 
A 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2000 of the Patna High Court 
in Crl. W.J.C. No. 378 of 2000. 
S.B. Sanyal, Alok Kumar, Rajesh Pathak for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.