2010 (10) TMI 1246 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the complaint.
2. Interpretation of Section 473 Cr. P.C.
3. Application of judicial mind by the ASJ.
4. Speedy trial as a guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Complaint:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 23rd December 2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissing the revision against the Metropolitan Magistrate's (MM) order, which condoned a 142-day delay in filing the complaint under the Official Secrets Act. The CBI explained that the delay was due to seeking legal opinions from the Attorney General and Additional Solicitor General, which was necessary to determine if the corporate entity could be made an accused. The CMM accepted this explanation, and the ASJ upheld it, finding no negligence or inaction by the CBI.

2. Interpretation of Section 473 Cr. P.C.:
Section 473 Cr. P.C. allows a court to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if the delay is properly explained or if it is necessary in the interests of justice. The Supreme Court in Smt. Venkata Reddy and Ors. Vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy and Ors. clarified that the word "OR" in Section 473 should not be read as "AND". The court emphasized that the provision has an overriding effect on Section 468, allowing cognizance if either the delay is explained or it is necessary for justice.

3. Application of Judicial Mind by the ASJ:
The petitioner argued that the ASJ did not apply judicial mind and erred in relying on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Krishna Sanghai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner also cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt, which requires a twin test for condonation of delay. However, the court clarified that the statutory provision uses "OR" and not "AND", and the test laid down in Venkata Reddy's case should be applied.

4. Speedy Trial as a Guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner cited Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak to argue that indiscriminate condonation of delay violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court acknowledged the systemic issues in ensuring speedy trials, particularly for powerful individuals, but found the CBI's explanation for the delay valid and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.