The circumstances in which this quashment proceeding has arisen are as follows:
2. In the month of December, 1964 a case was registered against the petitioner and five other persons for an offence under section 167(8-A) and (81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The charge- sheet against them was submitted on 16-12-1965 and the calendar of witnesses shows 33 witnesses. Till today only six witnesses have been examined. The application has therefore been made by the petitioner for the quashment of the proceedings on grounds of inordinate delay in the trial, and on the further ground that there is no evidence so far recorded to justify the trial against him.
3. It appears that after the case had been registered a writ petition was filed by one of the six accused namely, Abdul Qayum being Writ Petition No. 106/65. In this writ petition stay order was granted with the result that the case could not proceed before the Magistrate. It was as late as 16- 4-1969 when the writ petition abated and the communication in regard to the termination of the writ petition was conveyed to the Courts below on or about 25-8-1969.
4. I have looked to the order-sheet and it appears that thereafter there were repeated adjournments in the case on the ground that one or the other accused was not present in the Court. Then very considerable time was lost on the issue whether the statements of the prosecution witnesses, recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. Had been supplied or not. The order- sheet clearly shows that there was no specific denial that the copies had not been supplied. They were rather misplaced in the course of time. What was worse, the papers had gone to the Law Ministry and eventually the statements were sup--plied after about a year or so. The case also could not proceed for some time thereafter because the City & A. D. M. Had not been invested with the requisite power. Subsequently it appears that one of the co-accused had jumped the bail. It is true that in-between there have been some adjourn--ments in which the prosecution is to blame.
There were four continuous adjournments though the learned Magistrate had ordered that no further adjournment will be granted. The resume of the events narrated clearly shows that the delay in the proceeding was not only because of the faults and failures of the prosecution. For 6 years, the case could not proceed, because', of the pendency of the writ petition and the absence of one accused or the other. I am therefore of the opinion that there is no ground made out for quashment on the score of delay.
5. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence so far recorded did not make opt any case against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State however contended that the witnesses so far examined were only against some of the accused in the case and the evidence of P. W. Jamshed shows that the petitioner was in league with the other co-accused and that he was also found sitting in bank at the time of the arrest, in dubious circumstances. Be as it may, the fact remains that some witnesses still remain to be examined and it is to be seen what they have to say in the matter. Even from the evidence so far recorded it cannot B be said that there is nothing to connect him with the alleged crime. I there--fore do not find any ground to quash the proceeding. However the case has remained in a state of suspended animation for a considerable period and the learned Magistrate will see to it that the trial is concluded within a period of four months and if necessary by proceeding from day to day.
6. In the result the application is dismissed.