It is pertinent to note that the FIR was lodged in the year
2009 and has remained pending for investigation for now more
than 12 years. In the list submitted with the FIR, the properties
which belong to his father and mother are also shown as his
assets. Certain properties in which the purchaser’s name is
mentioned are also shown as assets of the present petitioner.
11. The Apex Court in catena of judgments have held that
accused has a right to speedy trial and right to speedy
investigation. Present is a case wherein, investigation is pending
for last 12 years and conclusion of the Investigating Officer so far till date is that the assets of the petitioner are less than his
income. In view of the judgments referred to hereinabove, also
taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
where the Investigating Officers have come to the conclusion that
the assets of the petitioner are not more than his income and the
petitioner has shown his assets and his income in the income tax
returns right from the beginning, petitioner has retired. There is
no explanation by the Investigating Officer for the delay in
investigation and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner.
The delay in investigation clearly violates the Constitutional
guarantee of speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The proceedings pending against the present
petitioner, therefore, deserves to be and accordingly, quashed.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4462/2021
Anil Kumar Vyas Vs State Of Rajasthan,
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Butati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
1. Petitioner has preferred this Misc. Petition for quashing the
FIR No. 91/2009 dated 29.04.2009 lodged at Police Station - Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Jaipur District for the offence under Sections
13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
was working as AEN with the Public Works Department from the
year 1980. An anti corruption case no. 64/2009 was registered
against him in which after trial, petitioner was acquitted. It is also
contended that in the present FIR, the allegation was with regard
to disproportionate assets. It is further contended that the first
Investigating Officer submitted negative report to the Bureau on
04.06.2016, mentioning therein that the assets are not more than
the income of the petitioner. It is also contended that petitioner's
father was doing business of money lending and most of the
assets which are shown as assets of the petitioner actually belong
to father and mother of the petitioner. All the borrowers who had
taken money from the father of petitioner had kept their original
documents with father of petitioner. It is contended that petitioner
was regularly filing his returns and all assets of petitioner were
shown in his Income Tax returns filed prior to the present FIR
3. It is contended that after submission of the negative report
in June, 2016, the matter was kept pending by the Bureau and
information was sought from the Investigating Officer. The second
Investigating Officer on 18.12.2019 submitted his report, wherein
he mentioned that the income of the petitioner is more than the
assets of the petitioner. Another query was then raised before the
present Investigating Officer Mr. Madho Singh, Addl. S.P. A.C.B.
who has also stated that the income of the petitioner is not more
than his assets.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that right to speedy trial
includes right to speedy investigation. In this regard, counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court,
AIR 2009 SC 1822 (Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar),
wherein Apex Court held that right to speedy trial in all criminal
prosecution is an inalienable right under the Court. This right
applies not only to the actual proceedings in Court but also
includes within its sweep the police investigation. It is also held
that where right to speedy trial is infringed Court can quash the
proceedings.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11 SCC
130, wherein it was observed that speedy investigation and trial
are mandated by the letter and spirit of the provisions of of Code
of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court referred to Lokesh Kumar
Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11 SCC 130, (1880) 1
SCC 130, Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1
SCC 225 and J. Lalthangsei Vs. State of Manipur and Ors.,
wherein the FIR was quashed as period of 18 years and has
elapsed since the registration of the case.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Klopfer Vs.
North Carolina decided on 13.03.1967, Smith Vs. Hooey,
Judge Certiorary to the Supreme Court of Texas decided on
20.01.1969 and Barker Vs. Wingo, Warden decided on
02.06.1972, wherein right of speedy trial and investigation was
dealt with.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the Criminal Misc.
Petition. It is contended that the matter pertains to
disproportionate assets and the Bureau is competent to decide the
fate of investigation and if the case is made out, Bureau is
competent to file the charge-sheet.
8. I have considered the contentions and have perused the
entire record.
9. It is evident that petitioner has worked with the Public Works
Department for almost 39 years and retired from service in 2019.
He has been filing his income tax returns from the beginning,
wherein all his assets are shown. It is admitted by the
Investigating Officer that prior to the lodging of this FIR, regular
Income Tax returns were being filed by the petitioner, wherein his
assets were shown. In the initial investigation done by the
Investigating Officer, no case of disproportionate assets was found
to be made out against the petitioner and therefore, he submitted
his negative report to the bureau on 04.06.2016. The Bureau kept
the matter pending and sought further information from the
Investigating Officer. The second Investigating Officer also sent
information to the Bureau on 18.12.2019 mentioning therein that
the assets of the petitioner are not more than his income. Similar
is the conclusion of the present Investigating Officer.
10. It is pertinent to note that the FIR was lodged in the year
2009 and has remained pending for investigation for now more
than 12 years. In the list submitted with the FIR, the properties
which belong to his father and mother are also shown as his
assets. Certain properties in which the purchaser’s name is
mentioned are also shown as assets of the present petitioner.
11. The Apex Court in catena of judgments have held that
accused has a right to speedy trial and right to speedy
investigation. Present is a case wherein, investigation is pending
for last 12 years and conclusion of the Investigating Officer so far
till date is that the assets of the petitioner are less than his
income. In view of the judgments referred to hereinabove, also
taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
where the Investigating Officers have come to the conclusion that
the assets of the petitioner are not more than his income and the
petitioner has shown his assets and his income in the income tax
returns right from the beginning, petitioner has retired. There is
no explanation by the Investigating Officer for the delay in
investigation and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner.
The delay in investigation clearly violates the Constitutional
guarantee of speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The proceedings pending against the present
petitioner, therefore, deserves to be and accordingly, quashed.
12. Misc. Petition is accordingly, allowed. FIR No. 91/2009 dated
29.04.2009 lodged at Police Station-Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Jaipur is quashed.
13. Stay application stands disposed of.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
No comments:
Post a Comment