VAKIL PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 517 
VAKIL PRASAD SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - HELD: Is an c 
inalienable rig(lt applicable not only to actual proceedings in 
court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police 
investigations as well - In the instant case, prosecution has 
failed to show any exceptional circumstance for condoning a 
' 
~' 
callous and inordinate delay of more than 20 years in 
D 
investigation and the trial - In the circumstances, continuance 
of criminal proceedings against appellant is unwarranted -
Proceedings quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
- s.482 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 161, 109, 120-B -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - s. 5(2). 
E 
The appellant was an Assistant Engineer in the Bihar 
State Electricity Board. A complaint was lodged against 
him by a contractor for allegedly demanding Rs.1,000/- as 
illegal gratification. A trap was laid and the appellant was 
caught red handed. A charge-sheet was filed on 28.2.1982 
F 
against the appellant for commission of offences 
punishable u/ss 161, 109, 120-B IPC and s.5(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Magistrate took 
cognizance on 9.12.1982. The appellant filed a petition u/ 
s 482 CrPC before the High Court contending that the G 
. , 
Inspector of Police who had conducted the investigation 
... 
had no jurisdiction to do so. The High Court by its order 
dated 7 .12.1990 quashed the order of Magistrate taking 
- cognizance, with a direction to get the investigation 
517 
H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A completed by the appropriate officer, within three 
months, but to no avail. In the year 1998 the appellant 
filed another petition uls 482 CrPC for quashing of the 
proceedings pending against him in Special Case No. 29 
of 1987 before the Special Judge. During the pendency 
B of the petition, the investigation was completed and a 
fresh charge-sheet was filed on 1.5.2007. On 9.7.2007, the 
High Court dismissed the appellant's petition. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
appellant that though a period of about 28 years since the 
C registration of the case against him had elapsed, the trial 
did not commence and the appellant was deprived of his 
constitutional right of speedy investigation and trial 
flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. 
D. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Time and again this Court has 
emphasized the need for speedy investigations and trial 
as both are mandated by the letter and spirit of the 
. E provisions of the Cr.P.C. (in particular, Sections 197, 173, 
309, 437 (6) and 468 etc.) and the constitutional protection 
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is well settled 
that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions 
is an inalienable right under Article 21. This right is 
applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but 
F also includes within its sweep the preceding police 
investigations as well. [Para 12 and 15] [524-E-F; 528-B] 
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 
SCC 578; Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. 
G (1992) 1 SCC 225; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. 
(1978) 1 SCC 248; Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home 
Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; State of Haryana 
& Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Janata 
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305 and 
H Kurukshetra University & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. 
.. 
VAKIL PRASAD SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
519 
-'" 
(1977) 4 sec 451, relied on. 
A 
--
"Common Cause" A Registered Society v. Union of India 
(UOI) & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 33; "Common Cause", A 
Registered Society v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 775; 
Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar 1998) 7 SCC 507 and Raj B 
Deo Sharma II v. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 604, referred 
to. 
+ 
1.2. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to 
show any exceptional circumstance which could possibly 
be taken into consideration for condoning a callous and c 
inordinate delay of more than two decades in 
investigations and the trial. The said delay cannot, in any 
way, be said to be arising from any default on the part of 
the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that even till date, 
~ 
it is not clear whether sanction for prosecuting the D 
appellant is required and if so, whether it has been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.