IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.240/2019 c/w 241/2019, 242/2019, 243/2019, 244/2019, 245/2019, 246/2019, 247/2019, 248/2019, 249/2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.240/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH ‘A’ MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT. THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU, GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32922/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ACMM, BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.241/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT. THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR, S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32926/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.242/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR, S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR, II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32928/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ACMM, BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.243/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32931/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ACMM, BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.244/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANANRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32932/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.245/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANANRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32933/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.246/2019 SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANANRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32935/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ACMM, BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.247/2019 SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANANRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32936/2018, PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.248/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANANRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32937/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ACMM, BANGALORE.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.249/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OFFICER/ACCOUNTANT/MANAGER TRAINEE, EXECUTOR, TRUSTEE AND TAXATION SECTION, CANANRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE.
R/AT NO.87, 96TH A MAIN, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(AS STATED IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE CASE) NOTE: THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND STATED ABOVE ARE WRONG AND INCORRECT . THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER IS:
M.N. MANOHAR S/O. LATE M.S.A. NARAIN, 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1200, 8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
CBI/SPE/BLRU GANGANAGAR, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32939/2018 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ACMM, BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who is arraigned as accused in C.C.Nos.32922/2018, 32926/2018, 32928/2018, 32931/2018, 32932/2018, 32933/2018, 32935/2018, 32936/2018, 32937/2018 and 32939/2018 has sought for quashing of proceedings pending on the file of XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. R.C.Nos.33(A)/1982 and 41(A)/1982 which came to be registered on 21/10/1982 and 24/12/1982 respectively against petitioner, who was then working as Officer/Accountant, Executor, Trustee & Taxation Section, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru, and against one Sri Y.K.Raghavendra Rao (Accused No.1), Senior Manager, ETTS, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bengaluru, alleging that while petitioner was working in the above capacity during the years 1978 and 1979 had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of funds belonging to the Estate of Dr. A.S.Venkatachalam whose financial affairs were being managed by the said executor, trustee and taxation section as executors of the Will of Dr.A.S.Venkatachalam, in respect of which he had dominion and had misappropriated the amounts during different periods by falsifying the books of accounts of Canara Bank. On completion of investigation, in R.C.No.33/1982, six final reports were filed before IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in C.C.Nos.2139/1985, 2140/1985, 419/1986, 420/1986, 421/1986 and 422/1986 on 16/11/1983 and R.C.No.41/1982, and four final reports were filed in R.C.Nos.5/1986, 6/1986, 7/1986 and 8/1986. Charges came to be framed on 23/12/1992. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed Criminal Revision Petition Nos.87/1993 to 95/1993 and 98/1993 before the XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. On 27/05/1993, accused person came to be discharged. Being aggrieved by the same, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed Criminal Revision Petition No.469/1993 in R.C.No.41/1982 and Criminal Revision Petition No.606/1993 in R.C.No.33/1982 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the cause for delay in filing the criminal revision petition by the accused before Sessions Court had not been explained properly. This Court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the CBI on 05/08/1996 and remitted the matter back to the Sessions Court for re- consideration of the issue.
2. Pursuant to the said order, on 22/07/1998, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petitions filed by the accused person on the ground that delay in filing the criminal petition has not been explained properly. Being aggrieved by the said order, Criminal Revision Petition Nos.2632, 2633, 2635 and 2636 of 1998 in R.C.Nos.41/1982 and Criminal Petition Nos.2790-2795/1998 in R.C.No.33/1982 before this Court. Yet again, on 18/11/1998, the matter came to be remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for re-consideration and to exercise whether delay has been explained properly or not.
3. In the meanwhile, the accused had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.509/2012 connected with Criminal Revision Petition Nos.510-517/2012 before this Court, which came to be allowed on 14/06/2012 by condoning the delay in filing the criminal revision petition and this Court had directed the Sessions Court to hear the matter on merits and pass final order on or before 14/08/2012. On account of original records not being traceable, learned Sessions Judge sought for extension of time and at that point of time, this Court directed the trial Court to conduct an internal inquiry with regard to missing of documents. Pursuant to same, respondent had filed copies of documents in two criminal cases arising out of R.C.No.41(A)/1982 on 06/02/2014, which was said to be available with the respondent. It is thereafter, on 26/02/2014, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition, which had been filed by the accused and directed the trial Court to trace the missing records. However, complete records have not been traced. Hence, petitioner is before this Court contending inter alia his personal liberty is infringed and there is no speedy disposal of proceedings initiated against him and as such, the issuance of summons at this stage, after a period of nearly forty years to continue prosecution against petitioner on the basis of documents, which are not available with the jurisdictional Court would be an abuse of process of Law and travesty of justice. Hence, contending that proceedings initiated by the respondent by filing a charge sheet with supportive material which are admissible in law would only be continued and Court would get its jurisdiction to find out whether any offence is made out to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) or (b) of Cr.P.C. and in the instant case, order dated 14.12.2018 issuing process would indicate that even when the original document and other material collected during investigation not being available and thereby it would be neigh impossible to secure conviction of the petitioner. Hence, he prays for quashing of the proceedings.
4. This Court while issuing notice to respondent on 16/01/2019 held that respondent-CBI ought to have filed an affidavit with regard to status of original records or in ability to build records so as to proceed with the prosecution initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 1985. Pursuant to same, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, has filed an affidavit narrating the sequential events and the present position of the missing documents as under:
“4. I submit in this regard the matter was brought to the notice of the respondent/Head of Zone, Hyderabad on 23.12.2014. As directed by the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (ACZ), Hyderabad the matter was taken up with Canara Bank to find out the availability of copies records with them. In reply they have stated that copies of 54 documents out of 158 in RC 33(A)/1982 and copies of eight documents out of 48 in RC
13.07.2015. In this regard, PE- 3(A)/2015/CBI/Hyd was conducted by respondent/ACB, Hyderabad.
15. I submit that after sincere efforts we could locate the documents as per the details mentioned below:
The available copies as mentioned above were submitted to the learned IVth ACMM, Bengaluru on 06.02.2014 & 20.09.2016 and all the CCs were transferred to XVIIth ACMM, Bengaluru and pending for disposal.”
Thus, from the perusal of above statement made by respondent/CBI, it would clearly indicate that documents traced in respect of five cases by building the records are said to have been transferred to the XVII ACMM, Bengaluru. However, said records are also not available in said Court and statement made in that regard by respondent/CBI is to the following effect:
“16. I submit that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had conducted enquiry about the officials who had received the documents and charge sheets, etc. in this case and found that no record were available to find out the particulars of the officials who had received the documents. Hence the Court has closed the matter without any further enquiry.”
5. In fact, none of the original documents are available before trial Court. Respondent/CBI has submitted that it was able to re-construct copies of documents only in respect of two cases, which is also not available now and in other two cases, it is not traceable. A categorical statement has been made that in the absence of original documents, it would be difficult to sustain the prosecution as against the accused. In fact, material prosecution witnesses, who have been cited by the respondent, majority of them being prime witnesses are also said to have breathed their last. In conclusion, respondent/CBI has stated in the affidavit filed today that it has become difficult for the prosecution to proceed further in the absence of majority of witnesses since the incident is of the year 1978 and FIR is of the year 1982. Statement made on oath by the respondent/CBI in that regard is to the following effect:
“17. I submit that in all ten cases as stated in para 13 of this affidavit supra, original documents are not available, however we are able to re-construct copies of documents only in respect of two cases. However, in the absence of original documents in all the above cases, it would be difficult to sustain the prosecution as against the accused. That apart, we had also conducted enquiry to find out the availability of the material witnesses in the above case who could depose before the Hon’ble Court during its course of trial. Since the incident is of the year 1978, FIR is of the year 1982, majority of the prime witnesses have breathed their last. Further, it is also a fact that the petitioner/accused is now aged about 80 years. Hence, it has become difficult for the prosecution to proceed further in the absence of majority of witnesses.”
(emphasis supplied by me) 6. In the background of aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner would only be an exercise in futility and it would not serve any fruitful purpose. Admittedly, original documents are not traceable and not available. Prime witnesses are not alive. Thus, at the age of 82 years, if petitioner is directed to undergo the ordeal of trial it would be definitely onerous. In other words, to face trial on the basis of charge having been framed without any documentary evidence being available it would be a formality or empty trial and particularly in the absence of original documents and records having not been constructed and those records which have been re- constructed also not being available. As pointed out by Sri S.G.Bhagwan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, directing respondent to re-examine the issue of construction of records after a lapse of forty years, which exercise having already been undertaken would definitely be an exercise in futility and it would definitely be affecting the right of the petitioner and guarantee enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that is speedy disposal of Criminal trial would be defeated. This view stands fruitful by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 1997 SC 3400] whereunder it has been held:
“39. Normally when the sanction order is held to be bad, the case is remitted back to the authority for re-consideration of the matter and to pass a fresh order of sanction in accordance with law. But in the instant case, the incident is of 1983 and therefore, after a lapse of fourteen years, it will not, in our opinion, be fair just to direct that the proceedings may again be initiated from the stage of sanction so as to expose the appellant to another innings of litigation and keep him on trial for an indefinitely long period contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution which, as a part of right to life, philosophizes early and of criminal proceedings through a speedy trial.”
7. In light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner would not only be onerous to the petitioner, but it would also be waste of precious judicial time as it would not serve any fruitful purpose. Hence, these petitions deserves to be allowed.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R (1) Criminal petitions are allowed.
(2) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.Nos.32922/2018, 32926/2018,
32937/2018 and 32939/2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477(A) IPC on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
In view of disposal of these Criminal petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay filed in all these petitions do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE S*