9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the power of a Magistrate to permit continuation of proceedings beyond four years from the date of appearance of the accused. 2. Application of Section 245(3) in a case where witnesses were not examined within the statutory period due to reasons beyond the control of the complainant. 3. Consideration of the timing of the Magistrate's satisfaction under Section 245(3) before or after the expiry of the four-year period. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 245(3) of Cr.P.C. The revisional application arose from a case where the accused had surrendered and was enlarged on bail but witnesses were not examined for a considerable period. The matter was referred to a larger bench to decide whether the power under Section 245(3) to continue proceedings after four years could be exercised when the prosecution was not responsible for the delay. Conflicting views from previous judgments were highlighted, necessitating a clarification on the application of the provision. Issue 2: Application of Section 245(3) in the present case The court examined the timeline of events from the appearance of the accused to the examination of witnesses, noting numerous adjournments due to the presiding officer's unavailability and transfer. Despite the complainant's diligence in producing witnesses, circumstances beyond their control led to the delay in examination. The court opined that Section 245(3) focuses on witness production, not examination, and in this case, the complainant fulfilled their duty. The delay was attributed to court-related factors, not the complainant's actions, making the provision inapplicable. Issue 3: Timing of Magistrate's satisfaction under Section 245(3) While the court did not delve deeply into the timing of the Magistrate's satisfaction under the provision, it noted that the case law supported instances where the Magistrate's satisfaction was recorded after the statutory period. However, since the court found Section 245(3) not applicable to the present case due to reasons beyond the complainant's control, the issue of timing was not extensively addressed. In the final judgment, the revisional application was dismissed, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings within six months and conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis post-framing of charges. The court emphasized against granting adjournments on flimsy grounds to ensure a swift trial process.
|
