9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in completing trial; Violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India; Abuse of process of the court; Entitlement to speedy trial; Responsibility for trial delays; Application of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Analysis: 1. Delay in Completing Trial: The case involved a significant delay in completing the trial, spanning over 17 years. The petitioner argued that this delay violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to a speedy trial. The prosecution had examined only 16 witnesses by 1999, with 33 more witnesses pending. The petitioner contended that the prolonged trial was against his constitutional rights and sought to quash the proceedings. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner claimed that the delay in completing the trial amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner emphasized the need for a speedy trial, as guaranteed by Article 21, and argued that the continuous delays were unjust and abusive of the legal process. The petitioner asserted that the proceedings against him were an abuse of court processes and requested the court to quash the case. 3. Responsibility for Trial Delays: The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the delay in the trial was not solely due to the prosecution but also because of the actions of the petitioner and other accused. The prosecutor highlighted instances where the accused, including the petitioner, absconded, leading to delays in executing warrants and arrests. The prosecutor argued that the petitioner's actions contributed to the extended trial duration and opposed the petitioner's plea to quash the proceedings based on delay. 4. Application of Inherent Powers: The court considered the application of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings due to the delay in trial. The Special Public Prosecutor urged the court to exercise restraint in applying these powers, emphasizing that the trial had commenced, with 19 witnesses already examined and only two remaining. The court found the prosecutor's argument reasonable and declined to quash the proceedings, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously and dispose of the case within four months. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, subject to the direction for the trial court to proceed with the case on a day-to-day basis and conclude the trial within a specified period. The judgment underscored the importance of expeditious trial proceedings while considering the responsibilities of both the prosecution and the accused in contributing to trial delays.
|
