LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P.V. PAVITHRAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P.V. PAVITHRAN MARCH I, 1990 [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 173 and 482- lnvestigation-lnordinate delay-Whether ipso facto a ground for quashing of F.1.R.-Factors to he considered for determining delay- C Speedy investigation and trial-Necessity for. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-Right to speedy investi- gation and fair trial-Delayed or protracted investigation-Whether causes grave prejudice or disadvantage to accused. D A case was registered against the respondent, an officer of the Indian Police Service, under Section 5(2) read with Section S(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on 8.3.1984 but the investigation report was submitted to the Government on 17.9.1987. In November, 1987; the respondent filed a criminal petition for quashing further pro- ceedings pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report E contending that there had been inordinate delay in the investigation and that the prosecution had not filed the report as contemplated under Section 173 Cr. P.C. till he filed the petition. The appellant contended that the delay was occasioned on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent and that the case was a complicated and time-consuming one. The High Court quashed the First Information Report and F observed that wherever there was an inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing investigation, the case merited quashing of the First Information Report even. The State preferred an appeal in this Court contending that the High Court's observation was too wide a proposition and it would be G detrimental to the prosecution in future under all circumstances, regardless of reasons therefor. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: I. I No general and wide proposition of law cari be for- H mutated that wherever there is inordinate delay on the part of. the 746 y STATE OF A.P. v. P.V. PAVITHRAN 747 investigating agency in completing the investigation, such delay, ipso facto, would provide ground for quashing the First Information Report or the proceedings arising therefrom. [750H, 7SIA] 1.2 A lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investigation over a prolonged period makes an accused in a criminal proceeding to live every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under a fear psychosis. Therefore, it is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence and inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the Court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the citizen will step in and resort to tbe drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation. How- ever, there are offences of grave magnitude which would necessarily involve considerable time for unearthing the crimes aud bringing the culprits to book. Therefore, it is not possible t-0 formulate inflexible guidelines or rigid principles of uniform application for speedy investi- gation or to stipulate any arbitrary period of limitation within which investigation in a criminal case should be completed. [7508-F] 1.3 The determination of the question whether the accused has been deprived of a fair trial on account of delayed or protracted investi- gation would also, therefore, depend on various factors including whether such delay was unreasonably long or caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused or whether it was due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. The Court, in addition, has to consider whether such delay on the part -0f the investigating agency has caused grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused. The assessment of these factors necessarily vary from case to case. (750G-H I Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, [1986] 4 SCC 481, relied on. Bell v. Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica and another,· [1985] 2 All England Law Reports 585, referred to. A B c D E F The .Power of the Courts to stay a Criminal Prosecution; J9X5 G Criminal Law Review 175, referred to. In the instant case, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry but was reinstated on the basis of enquiry report and further action was stopped. However, by a subsequent order da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.