2011 (10) TMI 599 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether cause of the delay is mostly due to the accused either because they challenged the various orders passed or because they were not present in the court and hence proceedings could not be continued on many occasions? Whether causes attributable to the prosecution or even to the court are comparably much less as to permit the accused to take advantage of the delay in registering progress of the proceedings?

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings solely based on procrastination of court proceedings.
2. Delay in framing charges and progress of the case.
3. Discharge of accused based on delay without considering evidence.
4. Legal principles regarding delay in criminal proceedings.
5. Seriousness of the offence charged and implications on delay.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of quashing criminal proceedings based on procrastination in the case where accused succeeded in delaying the proceedings. The State challenged the judgment of the Patna High Court that quashed the criminal proceedings solely due to court delays caused by the accused.

2. The delay in framing charges and progress of the case was highlighted. The case, registered in 1991 under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, faced various delays leading to the accused seeking discharge. The accused's challenges and absence contributed significantly to the prolonged proceedings.

3. The Court analyzed the discharge of accused based on delay without considering the evidence properly. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings solely due to the delay of seven years was deemed improper as it did not consider the legal requirements for discharging accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Legal principles regarding delay in criminal proceedings were discussed extensively. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious trials but acknowledged practical challenges leading to delays. The decision highlighted the importance of considering each case individually and not solely relying on delay to quash proceedings.

5. The seriousness of the offence charged and its implications on delay were also considered. The Court noted that the offence under the RPUP Act was serious, punishable with imprisonment up to five years. The causes of delay, mostly attributed to the accused challenging orders or being absent, were crucial in determining the impact on the progress of the case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing the trial court to proceed with the case promptly. The Court emphasized completing the prosecution evidence within six months, debiting any delay caused by the accused. The judgment highlighted the balance between expeditious trials and ensuring justice, considering the seriousness of the offence charged and the reasons for delays in the legal proceedings.