9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in detail the manner in which she was tortured in her complaint. On 30th September, 1974 she was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and released on May 3, 1977. Other members of her family too were similarly detained. They were released on June 21, 1977. 4. On the private complaint filed by Smt. Guha, the learned Magistrate directed issue of summons to the accused police officials. On 5th November, 1977 the appellants herein surrendered before the learned Magistrate. By an order dated December 20, 1978, the learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand trial before a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 325, 330, 331 and 509 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused-police officials filed a Criminal Revision against the order of committal which was allowed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court on May 13, 1980. The High Court held the order of Committal bad. It directed the learned Magistrate to try the said case as a warrant case. The reasons for which the matter could not proceed thereafter from 1980 upto now, beyond the examination-in-chief of the complaint (Smt. Guha), is graphically set out in the opening paragraphs of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of justice to discharge the accused. 6. Section 245 occurs in Chapter XIX-B, which prescribes the procedure for trial of warrant cases. A perusal of Sub-section (3) would show that it recognises and incorporates the principle of speedy trial implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. The section applies only to private complaints. According to Sub-section (3), if all the evidence referred to in Section 244 is not produced in support of the prosecution within four years from the date of appearance of the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused unless the prosecution satisfies him on the bases of the evidence already recorded and for other special reasons that it will not be in the interest of justice to discharge the accused. 7. In this case, the accused appeared in the Court for the first time on November 5, 1977. All the evidence on behalf of the complaint-prosecution has admittedly not been adduced within four years therefrom. But, it must be remembered , Sub-section (3) was not on the statute book in the years 1981 or 1982. It was inserted only in the year 1988. We shall assume for the propose of this case that the four years period prescribed by Section 245(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and that it is not in the public interest to proceed with the said complaint, more particularly because the complainant is no longer in India but has settled down in Denmark after marrying a citizen of that country. Yet another argument addressed by Sri Jain is that while considering the matter under Section 245(3), the court cannot take into consideration the nature of the offence alleged. Sri Vaidyanathan reiterated the said submissions. 10. Sri Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent, besides refuting the correctness of the reasons advanced by Sri Jain and Sri Vaidyanathan submitted that the complainant has come back to India and that she is now permanently settled in India. 11. On the basis of the facts set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge relating to the progress of the case over the last several years, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion and judgment properly in dismissing the application filed by the accused under Section 245(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court sitting in revision did not find any error in the approach and conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate. We al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused-police officials in the torture chamber of the Police Headquarter. It opined that if the said allegations are proved they constitute serious offences and, therefore, they ought to be tried in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion, applying the principles evolved by this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 1992CriLJ2717 that this is not a case where the accused's right to speedy trial has been violated. He agree with the High Court that the truth of the allegations can be arrived at only after a proper trial which, having regard to the nature of allegations and having regard to other circumstances referred to by the Division Bench, should now take place without any further delay. We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Division Bench. 13. Sri Harish N. Salve, learned Counsel of Sri Santosh De submitted that his client's part was very minor even according to the complaint and that his client was only a police constable obeying the orders of his superiors. Counsel submitted in such a situation it would not be in the interest of justice to ask him to face criminal trial at this distance of time. We are not satisfied with the reasons assigned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
