NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 15-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 4 S.C.R. 767 
NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 50 of 2012) 
MARCH 15, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Powers under -
Exercise of -Scope - Accused, a public servant, allegedly 
acquired disproportionate assets - Trial under the Prevention 
C 
of Corruption Act - Prayer for quashing of the trial on the 
ground of delay - Held: No time limit can be stipulated for 
disposal of criminal trial - The delay caused has to be weighed 
on the factual score, regard being had to the nature of the 
offence and the concept of social justice and the cry of the 
D 
collective - In the case at hand, the gravity of the offence is 
not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe -
An attitude to abuse the official position to extend favour in 
lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective and an 
anathema to the basic tenet of democracy - Also, on facts, 
E 
the delay occurred due to dilatory tactics adopted by the 
accused, laxity on the part of the prosecution and faults on 
the part of the system, i.e., to keep the court vacant-Accused 
precluded from advancing a plea that the delay in trial caused 
him colossal hardship and agony warranting quashment of F 
the entire criminal proceedings - The accused, as alleged, 
had acquired assets worth Rs. 33.44 lacs - The value of the 
said amount at the time of launching of the prosecution has 
to be kept in mind - The balance to continue the proceeding 
against the accused tilts in favour of the prosecution -
Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution accordingly G 
not exercised to quash the proceedings - Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(e). 
The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed an FIR 
767 
H 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A against a public servant. Charge-sheet was lodged 
against him alongwith two old ladies before the Special 
Court. The offence alleged against the public servant was 
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegations against 
B the ladies were abetment for the main offences. As there 
was delay in conducting the investigation and filing of 
charge-sheet and disposal of certain interlocutory 
applications, the High Court was moved for quashing of 
the criminal proceedings. The High Court declined to 
c interfere and, hence, all the accused persons approached 
this Court in appeal, wherein the criminal case in respect 
of the old ladies was delinked and quashed, but the 
appeals preferred by the petitioner-public servant and his 
wife stood dismissed. 
D 
It is asserted in the instant petition preferred by the 
public servant and his wife under Article 32 of the 
Constitution that after this Court disposed of the earlier 
criminal appeals, charges were framed nearly after expiry 
of seven years; that nearly after four years of framing of 
E charges, the Investigating Officer, was partly examined by 
the prosecution and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned 
on many an occasion; that despite the last opportunity 
being granted by the Special Judge, the Investigating 
Officer was not produced for examination; that the 
F examination-in-chief of PW-1 has not yet been completed 
and the other witnesses have not been produced for 
examination by the prosecution; that despite prayer made 
by the petitioner that the prosecution case ought to be 
closed because of its inability to produce the witnesses, 
G the Special Judge has not closed the evidence; and that 
more than ten years have elapsed since the earlier 
judgment of this Court was rendered and, therefore, the 
whole proceeding deserved to be quashed. 
The gravamen of grievance of the petitioners 
H pertained to procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of 
NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL v. STATE OF 769 
MAHARASHTRA 
their social reputation, deprivation of respectable 
A 
livelihood because of order of suspension passed 
against the petitioner No. 1 during which he was getting 
a meagre subsistence allowance and reached the age of 
superannuation without being considered for promotion, 
extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and 
B 
strain, and denial of speedy trial that impaired their 
Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the 
Constitution. 
The question which therefore arose for consideration 
was whether in the instant petition, this Court, in exerc

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