9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate delay in prosecution and conduct of criminal cases. 2. Transfer of cases between different courts. 3. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Responsibility for delay in prosecution. 5. Quashing of prosecutions due to delay. Detailed Analysis: Inordinate Delay in Prosecution and Conduct of Criminal Cases: The petitions aim to quash the prosecutions on the grounds of an inordinate delay. The cases originated in 1973-74, with criminal cases filed in 1975 and 1978. Despite the passage of 15 to 16 years, the cases remained at initial stages. The petitioner argued that the delay amounts to a denial of justice and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which implicitly guarantees a speedy trial. Transfer of Cases Between Different Courts: Initially, cases were filed in both Bombay and Kanpur courts. The petitioner sought a transfer of the Kanpur cases to Bombay, which the Supreme Court granted in 1982. However, the cases were not consolidated as directed, leading to further delays. The petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to group all cases in one court, contributing to the prolonged litigation. Right to a Speedy Trial Under Article 21: The petitioner emphasized that a speedy trial is an implicit right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing precedents like Hussainara Khaton v. State of Bihar, the petitioner argued that the prolonged delay violated this fundamental right. The court agreed, noting that the cases had been adjourned approximately 75 times, and there was no reasonable hope for a timely resolution. Responsibility for Delay in Prosecution: The prosecution attributed the delay to various factors, including the need for investigation in multiple locations, the petitioner's Supreme Court application, and stays granted by the High Court on applications filed by co-accused. The court, however, found that the prosecution's static approach and lack of effort to expedite the cases were significant contributors to the delay. Quashing of Prosecutions Due to Delay: The court considered whether it was in the interests of justice to allow the cases to linger indefinitely. It concluded that the inordinate delay, combined with the prosecution's failure to present a concrete plan for timely resolution, warranted quashing the prosecutions. The court cited precedents, including Machander v. Hyderabad State and State of Bihar v. Uma Shankar, to support its decision. Conclusion: The court quashed all prosecutions in the cases pending in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's courts in both Esplanade and Ballard Pier, Bombay, as well as the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The bail bonds of the accused were canceled, and sureties discharged. The court stayed the operation of its order regarding bail and sureties for eight weeks at the prosecution's request.
|
