2006 (9) TMI 609 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Speedy trial as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.
2. Legality of the prosecution without valid sanction under Section 6 of the J & K PC Act.
3. Repeated filing of challans on the same facts and circumstances.
4. Mental, physical, and emotional stress due to prolonged legal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Speedy Trial and Article 21:
The primary issue in this appeal is the right to a speedy trial, which is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellant has faced criminal prosecution for over 26 years without a single prosecution witness being examined, which raises concerns about the violation of this right. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21, as highlighted in the case of *Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar*, where it was held that a procedure that does not ensure a reasonably quick trial cannot be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just."

Legality of Prosecution Without Valid Sanction:
The appellant was initially prosecuted under Section 5(2) of the J & K PC Act without a valid sanction from the competent authority. The High Court quashed the proceedings, stating that a valid sanction is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. Despite this, the respondents filed a fresh challan without obtaining a new sanction, which was again quashed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu. The Court reiterated that under Section 6 of the J & K PC Act, previous sanction is necessary for prosecution, and taking cognizance without such sanction is legally untenable.

Repeated Filing of Challans:
The appellant argued that the repeated filing of challans on the same set of facts and circumstances constituted a gross abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that the respondents had not challenged the earlier orders quashing the proceedings and yet filed another challan, leading to further judicial restraint on the appellant. The Court found this to be an unjustifiable action, causing undue harassment to the appellant.

Mental, Physical, and Emotional Stress:
The appellant contended that the prolonged legal battle had caused immense mental, physical, and emotional stress. The Court acknowledged this, noting that the appellant had been under legal duress for more than 26 years, which is contrary to the spirit of Article 21. The Court cited various judgments, including *Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak* and *P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka*, to emphasize that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental and that undue delay in legal proceedings is oppressive and unwarranted.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the prolonged prosecution without valid sanction and the repeated filing of challans constituted an abuse of the process of law. It highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21 and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the Court stressed the need for the prosecution and courts to prevent unreasonable delays to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused.

Final Judgment:
The appeal is allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the appellant are quashed due to the violation of the right to a speedy trial and the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution.