9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21. 2. Consequence of Violation of Right to Speedy Trial. 3. Applicability of Demand Rule. 4. Prescribing an Outer Time Limit for Criminal Proceedings. Summary: 1. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the "right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21," emphasizing that this right has been consistently upheld without dissent. The Court noted that this right is a fundamental right of the accused and encompasses all stages of criminal proceedings, including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. The Court highlighted that the procedure prescribed by law must be "reasonable, fair, and just," and any delay must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the number of accused and witnesses, and systemic delays. 2. Consequence of Violation of Right to Speedy Trial: The Court held that while the normal consequence of a violation of the right to a speedy trial may be the quashing of charges or conviction, this is not the only remedy. In certain cases, quashing the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice, especially in serious offences like economic crimes or corruption. The Court suggested alternative remedies such as expediting the trial or reducing the sentence. 3. Applicability of Demand Rule: The Court rejected the applicability of the demand rule, which suggests that an accused must demand a speedy trial to claim a violation of this right. It was held that the obligation to ensure a speedy trial lies with the State or the complainant, and the accused cannot be disentitled from complaining about the delay merely because they did not demand a speedy trial. 4. Prescribing an Outer Time Limit for Criminal Proceedings: The Court opined that it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe an outer time limit for the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Each case must be decided on its own facts, and the Court must balance all relevant factors to determine whether there has been an unjustifiable delay. The Court emphasized that systemic delays and the conduct of both the prosecution and the accused must be considered. Case-Specific Details: W.P. No. 833/90: The petitioner, a former Chief Minister, faced delays in trial due to various objections raised by him, including jurisdictional challenges and the necessity of a notification u/s 7(2) of the 1952 Act. The Court found that the delays were not solely attributable to the complainant and directed the Special Judge to expedite the trial on a day-to-day basis. W.P. No. 268/87: The petitioner, involved in a high-profile murder case, argued that the prosecution was responsible for delays. The Court found that the prosecution had not engaged in delaying tactics post-transfer of the case to Delhi and attributed the delays to systemic issues and the accused's own legal maneuvers. The Court directed the Delhi High Court to expedite the pending criminal revision and the trial court to proceed with the trial on a priority basis. Criminal Appeal No. 126/87: The appeal against the Patna High Court's decision to quash proceedings due to prolonged delay was dismissed. The Full Bench had held that a delay of ten years or more, not attributable to the accused, violates the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing the necessity of a fair and expeditious trial.
|
