9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in trial proceedings, Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Responsibility for delay in trial proceedings. Analysis: The petitions were filed by the second accused in certain criminal cases alleging offences under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Indian Penal Code. The accused, along with another, were accused of cheating the Income-tax Department by not disclosing income and opening accounts in fictitious names. After the accused appeared before the court and received copies of documents, they filed a petition to quash the proceedings, which was dismissed. The accused absconded, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant in 1993. Subsequently, they surrendered and sought permission from the Income-tax Department to compound the offences, except for one assessment year. The Department granted permission for compounding with a specified amount to be paid, which was not deposited. The accused then filed a writ petition questioning the Department's refusal for one assessment year, which was dismissed, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously. The trial commenced, witnesses were examined daily, and another writ petition was filed seeking a stay of the trial, leading to the present petition to quash proceedings citing inordinate delay and the right to speedy trial under Article 21. The court analyzed the situation and noted that the delay in trial proceedings was primarily due to the actions of the accused themselves. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that directions regarding time limits for criminal cases do not apply to cases involving offences under taxing enactments, especially when delays are caused by dilatory tactics of the accused. The court emphasized that the accused were responsible for protracting the proceedings and could not claim a lack of expeditious disposal. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's contention and dismissed the petitions, along with related criminal miscellaneous petitions. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the responsibility of the accused for delays in trial proceedings, emphasizing that they cannot claim a right to speedy trial when their actions have contributed to prolonging the trial. The court's decision was based on the principle that those responsible for causing delays in legal proceedings cannot then seek to benefit from those delays by seeking to quash the proceedings on grounds of lack of expeditious disposal.
|
