9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in proceedings, Prima facie evidence, Revisional jurisdiction of High Court, Framing of charges, Expedited trial Delay in Proceedings: The case involved repeated adjournments and delays in proceedings since 1996, leading to the matter being pending for an extended period. The High Court noted the history of adjournments requested by the counsel, emphasizing that the petitioner cannot keep such petitions pending indefinitely. The court highlighted that the petitioner had previously filed a petition in 1990 seeking similar relief, which was dismissed in 1993. Given the prolonged pendency of the case since 1984 and the previous examination of similar grounds, the court concluded that the petition had no merit and deserved dismissal to prevent endless delays. Prima Facie Evidence: The court reiterated the principle that interference in framing charges should not occur when there is a prima facie case against the accused. The trial court, after considering the evidence, found a prima facie case against the petitioner, who was identified as a technical director not in charge of the company's affairs at the relevant time. The High Court emphasized that the determination of prima facie evidence and framing of charges fall within the trial court's domain, and such findings should not be reassessed by the High Court in revision. Therefore, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges against the petitioner based on the available evidence. Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court: The judgment underscored that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 401 should only be exercised in exceptional cases where the trial court lacks jurisdiction or the order is legally flawed. In this instance, since the trial court had appropriately found a prima facie case and framed charges after considering the evidence, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's decision. The High Court emphasized that the trial court should be allowed to proceed against the applicant, and the revision was dismissed with a directive for the trial court to expedite the proceedings and complete the trial within six months, possibly on a day-to-day basis. Framing of Charges: The High Court affirmed that the trial court did not commit any illegality in framing charges against the petitioner. The court reiterated that the determination of whether there is a prima facie case for framing charges is a question of fact that should be left to the trial court's discretion. The High Court emphasized that the trial court's decision to frame charges should not be interfered with by the High Court in revision, as it is within the trial court's purview to assess the evidence and make such determinations. Expedited Trial: In light of the prolonged pendency of the case and the need for an expedited trial, the High Court directed the trial court to complete the proceedings within six months, with the option to proceed on a day-to-day basis if necessary. The court stressed the importance of cooperation from both parties to ensure the expeditious progress of the trial, especially considering the significant delays that had occurred in the case.
|
