The Kerala High Court declined to quash a 27-year-old corruption case, ruling that the right to a speedy trial cannot be used as a shield to avoid accountability, especially when the crime was promptly registered. The court emphasized that a long delay in the trial itself does not automatically favour the accused, and it ordered the Special Judge to complete the trial within four months.
High Court of Kerala delivered a significant ruling in which dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the accused, a former Upper Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority, sought to quash criminal proceedings citing 27 years of delay. The Court ruled that “merely because of pendency of proceedings and judicial interference, the trial being stalled, that by itself could not be adjudged in favour of the accused unless there is long delay in registering the crime itself.” By directing the Special Judge to complete the trial within four months, the Court set a strong precedent that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be invoked as a shield to evade accountability in corruption cases.
The origin of the case dates back to 1996–1998, when the petitioner was serving at the Kerala Water Authority’s Kaduthuruthy Sub Division. He was alleged to have dishonestly misappropriated funds due to a contractor, K.K. Visakhan, by encashing two bearer cheques and forging signatures on the counterfoils, thereby siphoning off a total of ₹24,755. On 31 December 1999, the Kaduthuruthy Police registered a crime on the contractor’s complaint. The case was later transferred to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and re-numbered as VC 01/04/ERK, bringing in charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in addition to the IPC provisions. Initially, the investigating officer filed a final report recommending closure. However, the Special Judge refused to accept the report and ordered further investigation, which culminated in a fresh charge-sheet that implicated only the petitioner, with other accused either deceased or exonerated.
The defence argued that after 27 years, trial itself would be oppressive and that the petitioner was being singled out. The petitioner also placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Sirajul & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2015) 9 SCC 201, where delay was recognized as a ground for quashing proceedings in appropriate cases. The High Court distinguished that ruling, noting that “since the crime was registered on the next year itself, it could not be safe to hold that the investigation started at a much belated stage.”
The Kerala High Court sent a strong message that accountability for corruption cannot be circumvented by leveraging the legal process for delay, especially when the initial steps of the investigation and charge were prompt.
