S.V. Ramachandran and Another vs State by Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Basin Bridge, Madras

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioners who are father and son respectively, are the accused in C.C. No. 9422 of 1982, pending on the file of the VI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. On a complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Basin Bridge, Madras,

they are being prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under S.3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

The prosecution case is that on 25.9.1981, the shop of the petitioners, run under the name and style Thulasi Metal Stores situated at No. 105 at

Angalamman Koil Street Vepery, Madras, was searched and some railway properties, the axle boxes cover, push cocks bearings, fan coils,

copper wire etc., were seized. A complaint was instituted before the trial Court on 12.8.1982. Witnesses cited in the complaint are six in number,

of whom four are official witnesses and the two others are witnesses who have attested the seizure mahazar,

In this petition preferred under S.482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of

process of court, the only ground urged by Mr. A. Raghunathan, learned counsel representing the petitioners is that from 1982 upto December,

1989, when he preferred this petition, witnesses were not produced by the respondent, though adjournments have exceeded 66 in number. On

one occasion, six years after the complaint was filed, viz., on 4.8.1988, learned Magistrate has made an endorsement on the docket sheet that one

witness, who was present, left the court even without permission and therefore the Chief Security Officer had to be addressed for his production.

A year and four months rolled by and even thereafter no witnesses were produced by the prosecution.

On these contentions, I have heard Mr. S. Shanmugha Velayudham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He completely agreed with the

statement of facts presented by Mr. A. Raghunathan. On instructions, he submitted that the complainant was on line duty and was not available to

be present in court

I have considered the sole contention of Mr. A. Raghunathan. Total inaptitude, carelessness and abject negligence in the conduct of this

prosecution is apparent. Facts regarding adjournments need no repetition. If the prosecution had not been able to produce even a singe witness for

over seven years and even one witness produced made himself scarce on one occasion, it will be unfair, to still hold, that the petitioners will have to

necessarily face the ordeal of a trial, for no fault whatever at their end. It is not disputed that only on very few occasions, the petitioners were

absent and that too on petitions filed under S.317 Cr.P.C., which were allowed. Identity of the petitioners never stood challenged. The value of the

properties seized appears to be Rs. 2700/-. Day in and day out courts impress upon the prosecution agency the need for speedy trial and fair

procedure, since they would fall within be mandate of Art.21 of the Constitution of India. This case is an example of how the law laid down is

thwarted with impunity. Eleven years rolled by, since the commission of the offence alleged. If for about seven years, the prosecution had not been

able to produce witnesses most of them government officials, regarding an occurrence which had taken place a year earlier, no useful purpose

would be served in allowing this prosecution, to survive any further. It is said, that the complainant had persuaded himself to represent that he was

not able to present in court since he was on line duty for several years. This excuse is obviously ridiculous and cannot work out to the disadvantage

of the petitioners. Long delay and inaptitude in the conduct of this prosecution will be sufficient to quash the pending proceeding in C.C. No. 9422

of 1982, on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. This petition is allowed and all Further proceedings in C.C. No. 9422 of

1982 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, shall stand quashed.