2013 (1) TMI 1042 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the addition of the Petitioner as an accused u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Impact of a stay order on the trial proceedings.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the addition of the Petitioner as an accused u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Petitioner was summoned as an accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar, u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2007. This decision was affirmed by the High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger Bench due to a similar reference in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2009 SC 483). The Court held that even if the addition of the Petitioner is justified by the Constitution Bench, the conclusion of the trial of the remaining accused does not prevent the prosecution of the Petitioner. The Court cited Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738, emphasizing that the newly added accused must be tried afresh, and the provision of de novo trial is mandatory.

2. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The Court recognized the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It was noted that the trial had already examined 134 witnesses, and recalling them for a fresh examination would jeopardize the right to a speedy trial. The Court referred to several precedents, including Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 91, and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, which emphasized the need for expeditious trials in criminal cases.

3. Impact of a stay order on the trial proceedings:
The Supreme Court had initially stayed further steps in the case by an order dated 17th December 2008. However, the Court clarified that the stay order was understood to halt the entire trial, which was not the intention. The Court modified the stay order to limit its effect to the addition of the Petitioner only, allowing the trial to proceed against the remaining accused persons. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner had no objection to the trial continuing in his absence, and there was no justification for a blanket stay against the progress of the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court modified its previous order to allow the trial to proceed against the other accused persons while maintaining the stay concerning the Petitioner. The Court upheld the right to a speedy trial and ensured that the legal process does not become unjust and unfair to the accused. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 20502 of 2008 and 24292 of 2011 were allowed in part to the extent mentioned.