Delay Of Over 18 Years In Concluding Trial: Rajasthan HC Quashes Chargesheet Under PC Act Against 100-Year-Old Man

The son was accused of possessing assets that were disproportionate to his income during his tenure as a Development Officer from 1978 to 2006. The case originated when the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Jaipur filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused in 2006 and subsequently submitted a chargesheet in 2014. This followed a raid where assets belonging to the petitioner and his parents were seized, including accounts and land documents, as well as the stree-dhan of his wife and their daughter-in-law.

A Bench of Justice Arun Monga said, “The advanced age and health issues of the petitioners’ parents demand a humanitarian approach. Forcing individuals nearing the end of their lives to endure a prolonged legal battle without any substantive charges against them is both cruel and unjust.”

Advocate Gajendra Singh Rathore appeared for the petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpuohit appeared for the Respondents.

The Court highlighted a significant delay of over 18 years in resolving the trial, suggesting that this prolonged timeline bolstered the argument that the charges might be baseless or lack substantial evidence. The Court said, “This delay, despite no fault on the part of the petitioners, violates their right to a fair and speedy trial. The absence of any progress, despite the charge sheet being filed in 2014, raises serious concerns about the administration of justice. Such delay undermines the legal principle that justice delayed is justice denied. No doubt, conversely, justice hurried is justice buried. But the case in hand is of former category and not latter.”

The Court noted that the elderly couple and their daughter-in-law had no direct involvement in the alleged corruption and concluded that there were compelling reasons to quash the charges against them. The Court said, “They have already suffered the pangs of protracted litigation without even a flicker of light in the tunnel.”

The court observed that the allegations primarily targeted petitioner and his brother, with the latter not being prosecuted due to the absence of necessary sanctions.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the seizure of assets belonging to petitioner’s family, including personal items like his wife's stree-dhan, suggesting that these actions were excessive and imposed undue hardship on the entire family. The Court said, “These actions extend beyond what is necessary for investigating disproportionate assets, causing undue hardship to the entire family. The inclusion of unrelated family members in the investigation adds to the oppressive nature of the case against them.”

The Court also raised issues regarding the inconsistency in the prosecution’s case, particularly noting that petitioner’s brother was not being prosecuted due to a lack of necessary sanctions. This inconsistency raised doubts about the validity of the charges against the rest of the family.

Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against petitioner’s parents and wife while allowing the case to continue against him as the main accused.

Cause Title: Ram Lal Patidar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2024:RJ-JD:35519]