ABDUL RAHMAN Versus THE STATE

This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Sukkur (Special Case No. 40 of 1979). The petitioner was a High School teacher in Government service, but he left Government service by tendering resignation in 1973. On 25-11-1974, Director School Education, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad lodged a F.I.R. with Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(d) of Act II of 1947. The allegation in the F.I.R. were wrongful withdrawal and misappropriation of G.P.F. advance drawal of difference of pay by fake fixation of pay; drawal of pay of advance on account of transfer from one School to another and misappropriation of tuition fees. Anti-Corruption Police, after conducting investigation, obtained sanction for prosecution and put up the challan on 31-3-1979 under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A , P . P. C . read with section 5(2) of Act 11 of 1947 in the Court of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur. After 21 years of the submission of challan, a formal charge was framed against the petitioner on 23-9-1981 by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption. In the case against the petitioner, two prosecution witnesses were examined on 5-11-1983, another two on 16-11-1983 and one witness on 12-1-1984. One Investigation Officer was examined on 8-2-1984 and the other on 12-8-1984. On 29-7-1984 the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and the case was fixed for arguments on 12-8-1984. According to the petitioner, thereafter, on one pretext or the other, the prosecutor sought adjournments. As the case was lingering on for no plausible or justifiable reason, the petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 381 of 1985 on 15-6-1985 in the High Court at, Sukkur. The said petition was dismissed by order, dated 17-6-1985 by a learned single Judge of this Court, but the trial Court was directed to dispose of the case within 3 months. The case was not disposed of within 3 months and a Transfer Application No. 6 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner, but the same was not pressed and the order, dated 17-10-1985 of the Court disposing of Transfer Application No.6 of 1985 reads as follows:-

"Mr. Gul Bahar Korai does not press the transfer application which is dismissed as withdrawn.

The learned Judge is directed not to grant adjournments to parties. It is regretted that in spite of specific directions the trial has not yet concluded."

2. According to the petitioner, as his advocate had not consulted him before withdrawing the transfer application, the petitioner, filed another Transfer Application No.7 of 1985. This transfer application was also dismissed by order, dated 28-10-1985 of this Court, While dismissing the transfer application, the learned Special Judge was directed to complete the trial within one month and report compliance. Then it was observed in the order dated 28-10-1985 as follows:-

"Twice the directions were issued to the trial Court to complete this case but in spite of that the compliance has not been made. It is not proper. However, transfer application having no merits is dismissed in limine. The copy be sent immediately to the trial Court."

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the specific directions of the High Court, including the direction dated 28-10-1985 given while disposing off Transfer Application No. 7 of 1985 to finalise the case within one month, final orders were not passed and, instead, after about 8 months, by order dated 7-6-1986, the learned Special Judge directed the Prosecuting Agency to bifurcate the charges and put up separate challans. Then, as a result of the direction of the learned trial Court by order, dated 7-6-1986, the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption, Sukkur has put up four separate challans being Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 of 1986, dated 23-12-1986 in Crime No. 43 of 1974. Thereafter also the trial has not concluded but is lingering on. In the circumstances the present revision application has been filed. This revision application has been filed under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. and also under section 561-A Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order, dated 6-7-1986 for bifurcation of the case and putting of separate challans and for suspension of the proceedings and setting aside the same.

4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Rahman A. Baloch, who has appeared in person and Mr. Ali Nawaz Dahraj, learned counsel for the State. Mr. Abdul Rahman had also prayed, during the submission before the Court, for quashment of proceedings.

5. In the case there are 9 accusations against the petitioner spread for period of over 3 years. The F.I.R. was registered in 1974, the challan was submitted in 1979, and the charge was framed against the petitioner in 1981. The entire evidence had been recorded and the case was fixed for arguments on 3-9-1984. Since then the case linger on without making any progress and the judgment was not announced by the learned Special Judge. These directions were given by this Court for finalizing the case within specified periods but that also did not bring about an end to the case. Instead, by order, dated 7-6-1986, the learned Special Judge, in view of 9 accusations spread over a period of 3 years directed the prosecution to submit separate challans and then 4 separate challans were submitted by Circle Officer Anti-Corruption, Sukkur on 23-12-1986. Instead of one case, there are now four cases pending against the petitioner on the basis of F.I.R. lodged nearly 14 years ago. In 14 years the case could not be finalized against the petitioner for which only prosecution is to be blamed and no fault or default can be attributed to the petitioner. It is a pathetic state of affairs. Now the petitioner has to face four trials arising out of the same F.I.R. of 1974. How long can an accused be subjected to criminal prosecution without his being informed by a competent Court that he is guilty or innocent of the charges alleged against him. The present is a clear case of the abuse of the process of the Court, where it took more than 12 years for a Court to order that the case against the petitioner could not be finalized in accordance with law on the basis of one challan in one case, but required four separate challans in four separate cases.

6. In the circumstances of the case, it would be unjust to allow the cases to proceed against the petitioner. In my view, therefore, it is a fit case where exercising the jurisdiction and power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. proceedings pending against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Mr. Ali Nawaz Dahraj, learned counsel appearing for the State also submitted that this is a fit case for quashment.

Accordingly the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by lodging of the F.I.R. No. 43/74 on 25-11-1974 and pending against the petitioner pursuant to the said F.I.R. in Special Case No. 40 of 1979 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is on bail from the trial Court. His bail bonds are discharged.

This criminal revision stands disposed of accordingly.

S.A./A-313/K Proceedings quashed.