9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Prolonged delay in completing the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and its impact on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Non-examination of all witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition and its compliance with the proviso to Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Whether the impugned order taking cognizance and summoning the accused was passed mechanically without application of judicial mind. Detailed Analysis: 1. Prolonged Delay and Right to Speedy Trial: The petitioners argued that a delay of nine years in completing the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court acknowledged that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty, which includes a speedy trial. However, it concluded that the delay did not infringe on the petitioners' rights because they were not required to attend court or file for bail until summons were issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the delay, while deplorable, did not prejudice the accused as they only became involved in the case after the summons were issued in 2006. The court noted that in complaint cases, the right to a speedy trial accrues only after the issuance of summons, unlike in police cases where it begins with the apprehension of the accused. 2. Non-Examination of All Witnesses: The petitioners contended that the complainant's failure to examine all witnesses mentioned in the complaint petition violated the mandatory provisions of the proviso to Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. The court examined Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., noting that Section 200 allows a Magistrate to examine the complainant and any witnesses present. The court clarified that the proviso to Section 202(2) mandates the Magistrate to give the complainant an opportunity to produce all witnesses but does not compel the complainant to examine every witness named in the complaint. The court cited previous judgments, including Naresh Singh v. State of Bihar, to support the view that the complainant need only produce witnesses they wish to examine. The court concluded that the non-examination of all witnesses did not invalidate the proceedings. 3. Mechanical Issuance of Summons: The petitioners argued that the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and summoning the accused was mechanical and lacked judicial application of mind. The court distinguished between the requirements for issuing summons under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. and those under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It noted that while Section 319 requires cogent reasons for summoning an additional accused, Sections 190 and 204 only require the Magistrate to be prima facie satisfied that an offence is made out. The court found that the Magistrate had perused the complaint, the complainant's statement, and the evidence before taking cognizance and issuing summons, thus fulfilling the requirement of judicial application of mind. The court rejected the petitioners' reliance on the case of Pepsi Foods Limited, affirming that the Magistrate's order was not mechanical. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that: - The prolonged delay in completing the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., while undesirable, did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. - The non-examination of all witnesses named in the complaint did not contravene the proviso to Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. - The Magistrate's order taking cognizance and summoning the accused was not mechanical and demonstrated judicial application of mind. The petitioners were advised that they could raise relevant submissions at the stage of framing of charges.
|
