Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010236942024 2025:GAU-AS:9083 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1366/2024 DEBOTTAM ROY S/O LATE GOPAL CHANDRA ROY R/O SURYA SEN LANE, PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, SILCHAR, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, PIN-788007 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SHRI SONAMANI SINGHA S/O LATE BEHARI SINGHA IN-CHARGE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE CACHAR SILCHAR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, J MEDHI,MS. N M LONGKENG,MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. P K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI, SC, EXCISE DEPTT. Page No.# 2/5 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 15.07.2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.4243/2014 arising out of Silchar P.S. Case No.1951/2014 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. 3. On 04.08.2014, the Superintendent of Excise, Cachar, Silchar had lodged an FIR against the present petitioner alleging defalcation of excise duty amounting to ₹8,25,85,860/-. Police registered the case being Silchar P.S. Case No.1951/2014. 4. Thereafter, on 16.10.2014, one Inspector of Excise at Silchar filed a complaint case against the present petitioner alleging defalcation of excise duty of ₹7,24,04,086/-. Subsequently, the said complaint case being C.R. Case No.1647/2014 was withdrawn. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.568/2015 wherein this Court directed the State to exercise discretion for initiating fresh proceedings of cancellation of licence of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. In the meantime, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present petition praying for quashing the FIR of Silchar P.S. Case No.1951/2014. 7. During pendency of this petition, police has filed the charge sheet against the Page No.# 3/5 present petitioner. 8. Mr. Deka submits that right to speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. For the last 11 years the sword was hanging over the head of the petitioner without any trial. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Deka has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 117. Paragraphs 23 and 27 of this judgment are quoted as under: “23. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time for the conclusion of trial. 27. Be that as it may, the prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance, which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning the prolongation of investigation and the trial. The lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over a period of four years in a case of this type and inordinate delay of over eight years (excluding the period when the record of the trial court was in the High Court), is manifestly clear.” 9. Mr. M.P. Goswami has objected to this petition on the ground that since the charge sheet has now been filed, the trial should continue against the present petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 11. In Pankaj Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings when the Investigating Officer failed to file the charge sheet after 4 years. In the case before this Court, the charge sheet was filed after 11 years of filing of the FIR. 12. Eleven years delay in filing of the charge sheet is nothing but infringement of the Page No.# 4/5 right of a citizen to speedy trial. The exorbitantly long delay in filing of charge sheet has infringed the right to speedy trial of the petitioner. This does not find any exceptional circumstances in favour of the State. The lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over a period of 11 years in a case of this nature is manifestly clear. 13. On the basis of Pankaj Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3365 has held as under: “14. From the aforesaid, what can be culled out is that Article 21 recognises the right of speedy trial. The respondent/prosecuting agency must justify the reason for inordinate delay. The delay should not be attributable to the acts of the petitioner. 16. Thus, the delay in the investigation is not attributable to the Petitioner. The chargesheet has not been filed even till 06.10.2022 and is awaiting sanction. The sword has been hanging on the head of the petitioner for no fault of his. 18. What weighs with me is not only the fact that the chargesheet is still awaiting sanction before the competent authority but also the inordinate and unexplained delay in conducting the investigation for 10 long years. 19. The incidents mentioned in the FIR are more than a decade old and hence, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if trial is to be conducted on a chargesheet after more than a decade. The petitioner cannot be made to undergo the agony of trial after a decade of filing the FIRs.” 14. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the inordinate delay of 11 years in filing of the charge sheet is a clear infringement or right to speedy trial. There are no exceptional reasons to have a favourable view in favour of the State. The exceptionally delayed investigation and filing of the charge sheet cannot be condoned. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner amounts to miscarriage of justice. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 15. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of G.R. Case No.4243/2014 arising out of Silchar P.S. Case No.1951/2014 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Page No.# 5/5 Cachar, Silchar, is quashed and set aside. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant