"It is both cruel and unjust to force people who are nearing the end of their lives to endure a protracted legal battle without any substantive charges against them," the Court declared.

The accusations against a 100-year-old man and his 96-year-old wife in a corruption case were recently overturned by the Rajasthan High Court, which noted that the couple's elderly age and health concerns call for a humanitarian approach [Ram Lal Patidar and Others vs State of Rajasthan].

The 65-year-old daughter-in-law of the elderly couple who had initially filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against their 71-year-old son for allegedly having assets out of proportion to his income as Development Officer from 1978 to 2006 was also granted relief by Justice Arun Monga.

The Court noted that the trial took more than 18 years to conclude, and said that this further supported the theory that the accusations against the accused might not be well-founded or, at the very least, not be backed by substantial evidence.

"It is both cruel and unjust to force people who are nearing the end of their lives to endure a protracted legal battle without any substantive charges against them," the Court declared.

The Court determined that there was strong evidence to dismiss the accusations against the elderly couple and their daughter-in-law due to their lack of direct involvement in the case.

The Court stated that they have already gone through the agony of drawn-out litigation without even a glimmer of hope in their later years.

The defendants were the subject of a 2006 First Information Report (FIR) and a 2014 chargesheet filed by the Jaipur Anti-Corruption Bureau.

The primary accused Ram Lal Patidar's and his parents Dhooli and Panu Devi's accounts were taken after a raid. Furthermore, the stree-dhan that belonged to Premila, Patidar's wife, and their daughter-in-law was also taken. Documents pertaining to land were also seized.



The defendant filed a motion with the court to have the matter dismissed. They claimed that the prosecution had not moved to move on with the trial in the previous ten years. They said the lack of evidence against them was the reason for the delay.

The Court stated right away that Patidar and his brother were the main targets of the charges in the chargesheet.

However, because there was no prosecution sanction against the primary culprit, his brother was not charged.

After reviewing the case, the Court concluded that the more than 18-year "prolonged and unreasonable delay" was the most important factor.

"The petitioners' right to a fair and prompt trial is violated by this delay, even though they have done nothing wrong. Even though the charge sheet was submitted in 2014, there has been no progress, which raises major issues about the way justice is being administered. The legal precept that says "justice denied is justice delayed" is undermined by this kind of delay. On the other hand, justice buried is undoubtedly justice rushed. However, the situation at hand falls within the former category rather than the latter, it stated.

The Court also questioned the acquisition of Patidar's family members' possessions, including his wife's personal items like stree-dhan.

"By going above and above what is required for looking into disproportionate assets, their activities put the entire family through unnecessary hardship. It said, "The investigation's inclusion of unrelated family members accentuates how harsh the case against them is.

The Court went on to say that as people of that age are not at the center of the accusations, it is justified to drop their involvement in the case out of compassion.

The prosecution case's inconsistency, including Patidar's brother's lack of prosecution owing to lack of sanction, was also called out by the court.

It concluded that the prosecutor's inconsistent behavior raises the possibility that the case is not strong enough.

"It casts doubt on the validity of the case against the rest of the family as well if a pivotal individual, like the petitioner's brother, is not facing charges.”

Thus, the Court maintained the case against the principal accused but halted proceedings against the accused's parents and wife.