2013 (3) TMI 595 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India - Procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of their social reputation, deprivation of respectable livelihood because of order of suspension passed - Breach of Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution - Held that - It is to be kept in mind that on one hand, the right of the accused is to have a speedy trial and on the other, the quashment of the indictment or the acquittal or refusal for sending the matter for re- trial has to be weighed, regard being had to the impact of the crime on the society and the confidence of the people in the judicial system. There cannot be a mechanical approach. From the principles laid down in many an authority of this Court, it is clear as crystal that no time limit can be stipulated for disposal of the criminal trial. The delay caused has to be weighed on the factual score, regard being had to the nature of the offence and the concept of social justice and the cry of the collective. In the case at hand, the appellant has been charge-sheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for disproportionate assets. The said Act has a purpose to serve. The Parliament intended to eradicate corruption and provide deterrent punishment when criminal culpability is proven. The intendment of the legislature has an immense social relevance. In the present day scenario, corruption has been treated to have the potentiality of corroding the marrows of the economy. There are cases where the amount is small and in certain cases, it is extremely high. The gravity of the offence in such a case, in our considered opinion, is not to be adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of bribe. An attitude to abuse the official position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is a crime against the collective and an anathema to the basic tenet of democracy, for it erodes the faith of the people in the system. It creates an incurable concavity in the Rule of Law. Be it noted, system of good governance is founded on collective faith in the institutions. If corrosions are allowed to continue by giving allowance to quash the proceedings in corruption cases solely because of delay without scrutinizing other relevant factors, a time may come when the unscrupulous people would foster and garner the tendency to pave the path of anarchism. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality. Therefore, the relief for quashing of a trial under the 1988 Act has to be considered in the above backdrop. In the present case, as has been stated earlier, the accused, as alleged, had acquired assets worth ₹ 33.44 lacs. The value of the said amount at the time of launching of the prosecution has to be kept in mind. It can be stated with absolute assurance that the tendency to abuse the official position has spread like an epidemic and has shown its propensity making the collective to believe that unless bribe is given, the work may not be done. To put it differently, giving bribe, whether in cash or in kind, may become the mantra of the people. We may hasten to add, some citizens do protest but the said protest may not inspire others to follow the path of sacredness of boldness and sacrosanctity of courage. Many may try to deviate. This deviation is against the social and national interest. Thus, we are disposed to think that the balance to continue the proceeding against the accused-appellants tilts in favour of the prosecution and, hence, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings. However, the learned Special Judge is directed to dispose of the trial by the end of December, 2013 positively. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in trial and its impact on the petitioners' fundamental rights.
2. Previous judicial interventions and their outcomes.
3. Conduct of the prosecution and the accused contributing to the delay.
4. Legal principles governing the right to a speedy trial.
5. The balance between the right to a speedy trial and the societal impact of corruption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Trial and Its Impact on Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners argued that the prolonged delay in trial violated their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, causing emotional and mental stress, loss of social reputation, and deprivation of a respectable livelihood. They highlighted the excessive time taken to frame charges and the subsequent delays in examining witnesses, particularly the Investigating Officer, who retired and cited health issues for his inability to attend court.

2. Previous Judicial Interventions:
This was not the first time the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. Earlier, the High Court of Bombay had declined to quash the proceedings despite the delay. The Supreme Court had previously quashed the proceedings against two elderly co-accused due to insufficient evidence and their advanced age but dismissed the appeals of the main accused and his wife. The Court had noted the improbability of the trial concluding swiftly even with strict adherence to guidelines.

3. Conduct of Prosecution and Accused Contributing to Delay:
The State of Maharashtra contended that the accused contributed significantly to the delay by filing numerous applications and seeking adjournments. The accused sought to defer the framing of charges and repeatedly requested adjournments for personal reasons, including travel abroad. The prosecution also faced delays due to the Investigating Officer's unavailability and health issues.

4. Legal Principles Governing the Right to a Speedy Trial:
The Court referenced several landmark cases, including Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is relative and depends on various factors, such as the nature of the offence, number of accused and witnesses, and systemic delays. The Court reiterated that it is impractical to set a fixed time limit for trials, and each case must be assessed individually. The balancing test considers the length of delay, reasons for delay, the accused's assertion of their right, and the prejudice caused by the delay.

5. Balance Between Right to Speedy Trial and Societal Impact of Corruption:
The Court underscored the severe societal impact of corruption, noting that it corrodes the economy, undermines public trust in institutions, and fosters an environment where bribery becomes normalized. Given the gravity of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court found that quashing the proceedings solely due to delay would be detrimental to public justice and societal interests.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the delay in trial was attributable to both the prosecution and the accused. However, given the significant societal implications of corruption, the Court decided against quashing the proceedings. Instead, it directed the Special Judge to conclude the trial by the end of December 2013, emphasizing the need to balance the accused's right to a speedy trial with the broader interests of justice and societal welfare.

Disposition:
The writ petition was disposed of with a directive for the trial to be concluded by the specified deadline.