STATE OF BIHAR versus UMA SHANKAR KETRIWAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 18-12-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
402 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
UMA SHANKAR KETRIW AL & OTHERS 
December 18, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
Criminal trial-Prosecuti'on commenced in the year 1963--Continuing in 
1979-High Court quashing proceedings as an abuse of the process of court-. 
Order whether valid-Limit to period for criminal litigation to continue at 1rlal 
stage-Necessity of. 
A case was initiated through a report lodged with the police on the 9th 
April, 1960 that the respondent's firm had misappropriated a large quantity of 
G. C. Sheets meant for distribution to quota and sub·quota holders. 
After 
investigation, a police report was submitted on the 23rd December 1962 to the 
Magstrate, who took cognizance of the case on the 25th January, 1963. Cherges 
were framed against the respondents under section 7 of the Essential Com. 
modities Act on 15th September, 1967. The progress of the case thereafter 
was very tardy. 
In 1979, the respondents made two applications to the High Court 
f~r 
quashing the proceedings initiated against them. The High Court allowed them 
on the ground that the police report did not disclose any offence against any 
of the respondent,, and that as the prosecution commenced in the year 1963 
was still going on in 1979, it would be an abuse of the process of the Conrt 
to allow the prosecution to continue any further. 
In the appeal by the State to this Court, it was contended that the finding 
about the police report not disclosing any offence was erroneous and that the 
delay in the conclusion of the trial was not a justification for quashing the 
proceedings. 
Dismissing the appeal 
:F 
HELD : 1. There has to be a limit to the period for which criminal litiga. 
tion is allowed to go on at the trial stage. 
[4040] 
~ 
2. The present case is not a proper one for interference inspite of the fact 
that the allegations disclose the commission of an offence 
which 
is 
quite 
serious. [404EJ 
In the instant case the trial has not made much headway even though no 
G 
less than 20 years have gone by. Such protraction itself means considerable 
harassment to the accused 
not only monetarily but also by way of constant 
attention to the case and repeated appearances in court, apart from anxiety, 
[404C.DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 699 
of 1980. 
H 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
6-11-1979 of Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. Nos. 3679 and 
3913/79. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
' 
• 
• 
• 
• 
T 
BIHAR v. UMA SHANKAR (Kasha/, J.) 
403 
K. G. Bhagat and D. Goburdhon for the Appellant. 
A 
S. C. Misra, M. P. Jha and A. K. Jho for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by 
KosHAL, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against an order 
dated the 6th November, 1979 of a learned Single Jndge of the Patna 
B 
High Court quashing the entire proceedings in a criminal case against 
the 7 respondents who were facing a charge under section 7 of the 
Essential Commodities Act in the Court of a Magistrate at Bhagaipi;r. 
2. The case was initiated through a report lodged with the poiice 
on the 9th of April 1960 with the allegation that the respondents' firm 
C 
which held a licence for dealing in iron and steel had misappropriated 
a large quantity of G.C. sheets meant for distribution to quota and 
sub-quota holders. 
After investigation a police report was submitted 
on the 23rd December 1962 to a Bhagalpur Magistrate 
who 
took 
congnizance of the case on the 25th January 1963. 
However, the 
charge against the respondents was framed as late as 15th September 
D 
1967 and since then the progress of th" case was very tardy as the 
orders passed therein were challenged in appeals or on the revisio'nal 
side from time to time. 
Ultimately in 1979 th" respondents made 
two applications to the High Court praying that the proceedings against 
them be quashed and the same were accepted through the impugned 
order. The High Court held for various reasons that the police report 
E 
did not disclose an,y offence against any of the respondent.. Another 
reason for accepting the two applications may be stated in the words 
of the learned Single Judge : 
"Another important aspect of the matter is that the pro· 
secution commenced in' the year 1963 and it is still going on 
in 1979. It is true that the accused persons themselves are 
partly blamed for this delay because several revision appli· 
cations have been filed at \heir instance in the High Cou

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