SEETA HEMCHANDRA SHASHITTAL AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 990 · Decided: 13-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SEETA HEMCHANDRA SHASHITTAL AND ANR. ETC. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947/Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988-Section 5(2)/ Section 13(2) read with Section 13(/)(e). 
C 
Offences relating to corruption-Cogni::.ance of-Period for completing 
investigation-Non-prescription of-A public sen•ant booked for acquiring 
assets far in excess of his known sources of income-Charges heel filed after 
a long delay-Case involving voluminous records, large number of properties 
situated at various places and hundreds of documents regarding shares, fixed 
deposits etc. required to be scrutinised-Government taking two years to 
D accord sanction for prosecution-Such delay not attributable to investigating 
ojjicers-Chargesheet laid within a few days of obtaining such sanction-
Held, in the circumstances criminal prosecution cannot be quashed merely 
on the ground of delay in completion of investigation. 
E 
Investigation-Delay in completion of-Consequence of-Aged Mother 
and mother-in-law of a public servant accused of abetting him in acquiring 
assets disproportionate to his know sources of income-Insufficient materials 
for proving their offence-Trial not likely to end within one or two years 
considering the volume of documents and evidence to be adduced by the 
prosecution-Held, it would be unfair and unreasonable to compel them to 
F stand the long trial having no reasonable prospect of ultimate conviction 
against them. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : 
Trial-Delay in-Criminal prosecution-Quashing of-Held, each case 
G is to be considered on its own facts--Question of delay not to be considered 
H 
entirely from an academic angle. 
+ 
A public servant was booked for an offence under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act for acquiring assets far in excess of his known sources of 
income. After completion of the investigation, the Anti-Corruption Bureau 
990 
SE ETA 1 IEMCllANDRA SHASHITT AL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
991 
approached the State Government for obtaining sanction to prosecute him. A 
The sanctfon was'accorded by the Government after two years. Thereupon a 
chargesheet was laid against the public servant, his wife, mother and mother-
in-law before the Special Court dealing with offences under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act. The offence alleged against the mother and mother-in-law, 
both octogenarieans, was abetment of the main offence pitted against the B 
public servant. Thereafter, the case moved at a slow pace. 
The accused persons filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing 
the criminal proceedings on the ground that there was gross delay of 11 
years in filing the chargesheet. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed 
the same solely on the ground that in a similar case the High Court refused C 
to countenance similar contention. Hence the present appeal by the mother 
and mother-in-law. The other two appeals have been preferred by the public 
servant and his wife. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the mother and mother-in-law and 
dismissing the appeals filed by the public servant and his wife, the Court. 
D 
HELD : 1.1. The only offence alleged against the two octogenarian lady 
appellants is that they abetted the public servant to commit the offence under 
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There are two reasons to 
quash the criminal proceedings as against those two ladies. First is, the 
materials are too insufficient to prove that the two old ladies intentionally E 
abetted the public servant in acquiring assets which are disproportionate to 
his known source of income. If that is the position, there is no reason to 
compel the two old ladies to embark upon a trial which, in all probabilities, 
cannot end in conviction against them. Second is, the trial is not likely to 
end within one or two years. Considering the volume of documents and of the 
evidence to be adduced by the prosecution, it would be unfair and unreasonable 
to compel the two ladies, who by the advancement of old age would possibly 
have already crossed into geriatric stage, to stand the long trial having no 
reasonable prospect of ultimate conviction against them.1998-G-H; 999-A-CI 
F 
1.2. The case involves voluminous records as well as a large number of G 
properties which are situated at various places and, hundreds of documents 
-t--
regarding shares, debentures. Fixed deposits and receipts pertaining to 
hundr

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