2003 (9) TMI 59 - HC - Wealth-tax

Offence expeditious trial - The details of proceedings and dates given in para. 25 of the petition tell a very sorry tale and the infraction of the fundamental right of the accused enshrined in article 21 of the Constitution of India that every accused charged with a criminal offence is entitled for expeditious trial - Merely because the complainant happens to be a department of the Government that does not mean it is immune from the provisions of procedural law as well as the fundamental rights of an accused. The accused charged with a criminal offence is entitled for expeditious trial

Summary

Issues: Delay in pre-summoning evidence in a criminal case under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by J. D. Kapoor J. of the Delhi High Court addresses the issue of an abuse of the court process due to significant delays in the pre-summoning evidence stage in a criminal case under sections 35B/35C of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The court notes that the trial court had fixed the matter for pre-charge evidence after summoning the petitioner for offenses punishable under the Act, but despite more than eight years passing and 26 occasions set for pre-charge evidence, no evidence had been recorded by the complainant, a Government department. This delay was deemed a violation of the fundamental right to an expeditious trial as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment emphasizes that every accused charged with a criminal offense is entitled to a speedy trial, regardless of the complainant being a government department. The court criticizes the department for assuming immunity from procedural laws and fundamental rights, highlighting that every complainant is equal before the law and must follow the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court asserts that no government department filing a complaint should be allowed to delay proceedings after setting the court machinery in motion.

In response to the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that one witness had been recorded for pre-charge evidence after the filing of the petition. Considering the prolonged proceedings and the need for expeditious resolution, the court directed the trial court to record the remaining evidence on a day-to-day basis and make a decision on framing charges within one month. Failure to comply would result in the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing that the court cannot be taken for a ride.

The judgment concludes by exempting the petitioner from personal appearance until the decision on framing charges is made, and the petition is disposed of with the outlined directions to ensure a timely and fair resolution of the case.