Speedy Trial Cannot Become a Tool for Escape: Kerala HC Declines to Quash 27-Year-Old Corruption Case

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.

“Article 21 Right to Speedy Trial Is Not a Blanket Shield When Crime Is Registered Promptly”

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.

“Forgery, Falsification and Custody of Cheques: Prima Facie Case Made Out Against Accused”

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.”

On the evidentiary front, the Court highlighted the prosecution’s reliance on the forensic examination. The FSL report confirmed that the complainant’s signatures were forged on cheque counterfoils corresponding to cheque numbers 148190 and 761119, which were encashed for ₹9,290 and ₹15,465 respectively. The cash book entries were proved to be in the handwriting of the petitioner, who was custodian of the chequebooks as Head Clerk. Witnesses testified that the contractor never received the amounts, and the petitioner had falsified accounts to cover the misappropriation. The Court observed that “since the prosecution records would show the petitioner’s involvement in this crime with sufficient materials, prima facie, the quashment sought for could not be considered and the matter would require trial.”

In refusing to quash the case, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that corruption prosecutions cannot be nullified on the mere ground of passage of time when the FIR was promptly registered and the record contains prima facie incriminating material. The judgment serves as a warning that the doctrine of speedy trial under Article 21 must not be stretched to frustrate legitimate prosecutions of public servants. The Court directed the Special Judge to complete the trial within four months, underscoring the need for accountability and timely justice.

Date of Decision: 26.08.2025