The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the corruption charges against a centenarian and his 96-year-old wife, noting that their advanced age and health concerns warranted a compassionate approach.
The bench consist of Justice Arun Monga extended relief to the 65-year-old daughter-in-law of the elderly couple.
Case Brief:
The case was filed by their 71-year-old son under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), involved allegations that he possessed assets disproportionate to his income during his tenure as a Development Officer from 1978 to 2006.
The Court noted the trial's delay of over 18 years and observed that this prolonged duration reinforced the argument that the charges against the accused might be baseless or, at the very least, not supported by substantial evidence.
“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,” the Court said.
Given the lack of direct involvement of the elderly couple and their daughter-in-law in the case, the Court found a strong basis for quashing the charges against them. The Court noted that they had already endured the hardships of prolonged litigation without any resolution in sight during their twilight years.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau in Jaipur had filed the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused in 2006 and charged them in 2014. During a raid, the accounts of the main accused, Ram Lal Patidar, along with his parents Dhooli and Panu Devi, were seized. Additionally, the stree-dhan of Patidar’s wife Premila and their daughter-in-law, as well as land documents, were also confiscated.
The accused approached the Court seeking to have the case quashed, arguing that the prosecution had not taken any steps to advance the trial in the past 10 years, attributing the delay to insufficient evidence against them.
The Court observed that the chargesheet primarily targeted Patidar and his brother. However, the prosecution of Patidar’s brother was stalled due to the absence of prosecution sanction.
Upon reviewing the case, the Court emphasized that the "prolonged and unreasonable delay" of over 18 years was a critical factor in its decision.
“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,” it said.
Additionally, the Court highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution, including the fact that Patidar’s brother was not being prosecuted due to the lack of sanction. The Court opined that these inconsistencies in prosecutorial conduct suggest that the case might not be sufficiently robust.
Thus, the Court quashed proceedings against the parents and wife of the main accused but allowed the case to go on against the main accused.
Advocate Gajendra Singh Rathore represented the petitioner.
Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpuohit represented the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy