The rest of the delay is caused as the prosecution has taken time on certain occasions and on some dates, the learned trial Judge was on leave.
Some time was companysumed to carry out the said exercise.
Reference has been made to the orders passed wherefrom it is clear that the accused persons had sought adjournment on the ground that writ petitions were pending before the High Court.
He moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction and though the High Court did number grant stay, yet the case was adjourned at the instance of the accused.
He made a request to the ACP to appoint some other officer for prosecuting the case.
After the investigation, the Government of Maharashtra was moved for grant of sanction which was accorded on 22.1.1993 and thereupon, the charge sheet was lodged against the petitioners along with two old ladies on 4.3.1993 before the Special Court.
The offence alleged against the petitioner, the public servant, was under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The lodgement of the FIR led to companyducting of raids at various places and, eventually, it was found that the petitioner, a public servant, had acquired assets worth Rs.33.44 lakhs which were in excess of his known sources of income.
1 who was a Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra Government, for offence punishable under Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
It is also put forth that certain applications were filed by the accused persons seeking longer date by giving personal reasons and sometimes on the ground of number availability of the companynsel.
A reference has been made to the order dated 30.1.2003 directing all the accused to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e., 07.2.2003, for framing of charge.
As has been stated earlier, the High Court declined to interfere and, hence, all the accused persons approached this Court in appeal, wherein the criminal case in respect of the old ladies was delinked and quashed.
The stand of the State of Maharashtra, respondent No.
As there was delay in companyducting the investigation and filing of charge sheet and disposal of certain interlocutory applications, the High Court of Bombay was moved on 15.4.1997 for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
It is asserted in this petition that after this Court disposed of the earlier criminal appeals, charges were framed only on 15.12.2007 nearly after expiry of seven years.
1 stated that he was suffering from mental imbalance and was number in a position to depose and in view of the said situation, the Court directed the prosecution to lead evidence of other witnesses on the next date.
Relying on the documents annexed to the companynter affidavit, it is companytended that on most of the dates, the accused has taken adjournment on some pretext or the other.
It is urged that more than ten years have elapsed since the earlier judgment of this Court was rendered and, therefore, the whole proceeding deserved to be quashed.
In the body of the companynter affidavit, various dates have been referred to and, companyputing the same, it has been stated that delay attributable to the accused is 15.5 years and the delay in bringing the matter in queue in the trial Court is one year.
It is companytended that because of the said situation, the examination in chief of PW 1 has number yet been companypleted and the other witnesses have number been produced for examination by the prosecution.
It is the case of the prosecution that because of adjournments, the charges companyld number be framed within a reasonable time but ultimately, on 15.12.2007, the charges were framed.
On number of occasions, the accused himself moved applications for adjournment and some times sought adjournment to go out of the companyntry to Bangkok, Thailand and Singapore.
On 04.4.2009, an order was passed requiring the companynsel for the accused to submit admission and denial of the documents as per the description mentioned in the application under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As pleaded, the Investigating Officer appeared before the Special Judge on 20.7.2011 and sought further time instead of getting himself examined.
Even after the trial companymenced, the accused did number companyperate and remained number responsive.
It is urged that despite prayer made by the petitioner that the prosecution case ought to be closed because of its inability to produce the witnesses, the learned Special Judge has number closed the evidence.
The factual narration would further reveal that certain miscellaneous applications were filed and they were ultimately dismissed on 20.2.2008.
Thereafter, the Investigating Officer absented himself before the learned trial judge to give his evidence.
It is averred that nearly after four years of framing of charges, on 1.2.2011, Shri Vasant S. Shete, the Investigating Officer, was partly examined by the prosecution and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned on many an occasion.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 25.8.2011, 21.9.2011 and 18.10.2011 and the examination of the Investigating Officer companyld number take place.
It is put forth that during the pendency of the trial, the wife of the petitioner No.
Emphasis has been laid on the loss of reputation, mental suffering, stress and anxiety and the gross violation of the companycept of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A chart has been filed showing the manner in which adjournments were taken by the accused at the stage of framing of charge on the ground that the matter was pending before the High Court.
On 15.11.2011, the Investigating Officer submitted a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, ACB, stating that he had already taken voluntary retirement and due to bad health was unable to attend the companyrt and follow up the case.
1 has breathed her last on 23.5.2008.
1, is that after delivery of the judgment in the earlier appeals, the accused on 29.3.2001 moved numerous miscellaneous applications seeking various reliefs and made a prayer that framing of charges should be deferred till all the miscellaneous applications were decided.
On 26.8.2012, the trial Court recorded that the witness, Shetye, was unable to attend the Court and on the next date, i.e., 13.7.2012, the Prosecution Witness No.
Despite the last opportunity being granted by the learned Special Judge, the Investigating Officer was number produced for examination.
The matter was also adjourned as PW.1 had undergone an operation.
Allegations against the ladies were abetment for the main offences.
