http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  607 of 2008

PETITIONER: SUBIR KUMAR BASU

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/2008

BENCH: ALTAMAS KABIR & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 607  OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2398/06)                  Leave granted.         Without going into the merits of the case, we can simply indicate that  Criminal Proceedings under Section 420 and 120B IPC, which arose out of  First Information Report made on 5th March,1981, has not yet proceeded  beyond the stage of filing of chargesheet before the learned Special Judge in  Case No.4 of 1985.   Of course, we must add that major part of the delay has  been caused by proceedings pending in court, at the instance of not only of the  appellant but mainly on account of proceedings taken by the State.         The appellant had, in fact, moved the court for quashing of the proceedings in  writ jurisdiction and proceedings were, in fact, quashed.  They were, however,  revived when the State came up to this Court and directions were given to  conclude the trial expeditiously.  Unfortunately, over the issue of supply of  documents, which the prosecution was in any event required to supply, while   filing  the chargesheet,  proceedings were taken up first before the learned  Special Judge and, thereafter, before the High Court at Calcutta, resulting in  a major part of the delay of 28 years since the initial First Information Report  was filed.         Against a direction given by the Trial Court on 11th March,1989, to the  prosecution to supply copies of the documents to the appellant, the respondent  herein, moved the High Court in revision on 24th January,1990, and   proceedings were stayed in the said revision which was ultimately dismissed  for default on 21st November,2000.  Consequently, the directions given by the  learned Trial Judge on 11th March,1989, became final.  Despite the same, it  appears that the said documents as directed by the learned Trial Judge, were  not supplied and have still not been supplied to the appellant.  Consequently,  the appellant once again moved the High Court for quashing of the  proceedings but on this occasion, by its judgment and order dated 20th  January,2006, the High Court, after considering the various decisions on the  subject, was of the view that the proceedings ought not to be quashed. On the  other hand, the High Court  gave directions in the following manner:

       "The learned Trial Judge, that is, the learned Judge, 5th Special  Court, Calcutta is directed to supply copies as far possible in terms of  order dated 11.03.1989 and would also allow inspection as directed by him  in the said order, I make it more clear that copies of papers and  documents over which prosecution would not place any reliance need not  be supplied to the accused.  As it appears that papers and documents  consisting of more than three almirahas were seized copies of voluminous  documents need not be supplied and inspection should be allowed in  respect of voluminous documents over which prosecution would place  reliance.  I also direct the learned Trial Court to supply copies within  three months from the date of communication of this order and thereafter  to dispose of criminal case as expeditiously as possible and preferably

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

within one year after supply of copies of relevant papers and documents  and giving inspect of papers and documents to the accused persons.

      All  interim  order  of stay passed earlier stand    vacated."

       Aggrieved by the said order and directions of the High Court, the appellant  came up before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2398/06.         We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also  considered the various decisions directly on the point involved in this  particular matter.  In particular, we have been taken through the decisions of  this Court in the case of A.R. Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr.  (1992  (1) SCC 225), R. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002(4) SCC 578  and very recent Judgment in the case of Motilal Saraf Vs. State of Jammu &  Kashmir & Anr.  (2006(10)SCC 560).  All these three cases, amongst others,  agree on the principle that a criminal trial should not be prolonged and that  the accused is entitled to a speedy trial as flowing from Article 21 of the  Constitution.  At the same time, this Court has also given a note of caution  and has indicated that each case would, however, depend on its own facts and  the decision to either quash or to allow a proceeding or trial to continue,  would depend on the facts and circumstances  of each case.         Although, it is extremely unfortunate that in the present case about 28 years  have elapsed since FIR was lodged and the proceedings are still at the stage of  filing of chargesheet, we also have to take into consideration the time taken  before the courts which has resulted in this huge and inordinate delay.  We  cannot, however, absolve  the prosecution of not proceeding with the matter  with expedition  when the same was not pending before the courts.  This is a  lapse on the part of the prosecution which we deprecate. However,  we are of  the view that it would best serve the interest of all the parties to maintain the  directions given by the High Court in the impugned judgment with a few  modifications.         Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by directing the Trial Court to supply  copies of the documents referred to in its order dated 11th March,1989, within  three months from the date of  communication of this Order.  Apart from  supplying copies of the documents mentioned in the said order,  the   prosecution will also to give  inspection of the other documents also referred in  the said order within the said time frame.   We make it clear that in the event  any of the documents referred to, are not supplied to the appellant, the  prosecution shall not be entitled to rely on the same during the trial.         We also direct that once the copies have been supplied and  inspection has  been given, the learned Trial Judge will proceed with the criminal case and  dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, but positively within one year  from the date of supply of the copies of the relevant documents and giving  inspection of the documents to the appellant.         In the event, the Trial Court records have not been  sent  down  by  the High  Court, the same are to be  

sent down within one week from the date of the receipt of the copy of this  Order.  The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the High Court  expeditiously.           We also indicate that in the event the trial is  not completed within the period indicated hereinabove, the appellant will be  once again entitled to renew his prayer for quashing of the proceedings.         The appeal is disposed of accordingly.