9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bounden duty of the Court and the prosecution to prevent unreasonable delay. The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. The prosecution failure to initiate the trial proceedings for the past 21 years without there being any lapse on behalf of the petitioner herein. Thus, permitting the State to continue with the prosecution and trial any further would be total abuse of process of law. So far, the petitioner had undergone the ordeal trial for the past 21 years, the pendency of the trial would not serve any purpose and as such it is liable to be quashed.
Conclusion - The delay of 21 years in the trial proceedings was unreasonable and constituted a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.
The impugned Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 360 of 2003 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report after conducting further investigation. Eventhough, the first respondent police has not chosen to file report as directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and therefore, the above said case is still pending without any progress. He further submitted that the claim is of the year 1997 and the complaint lodged in the year 1999 and the same was registered in Crime No. 733 of 1999. Thereafter, the first respondent completed the investigation and filed the final report in the year 2003 and it is pending for trial for the past 16 years. Therefore, the delay causes only by the defacto complainant and the prosecution. There is no fault on the petitioner. He is undergoing ordeal trial without committing any fault. He further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to attract the offence under Sections 406, 467, 468,471 and 379 of IPC as against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the entire proceedings C.C. No. 360 of 2003. 5. Though, notice served on the second respondent, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent. 6. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the case was registered and final re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain filed the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 4895 of 2006, after a period of three years. The Trial Court ordered further investigation after a period of five years i.e. on 03.11.2011. The first respondent filed a report only on 20.08.2019 i.e., after a period of eight years. Therefore, the entire proceedings is pending for the past 21 years. It is also pertained to note that only on the fault of the respondents, it is pending and no fault on the petitioner side. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Moti Lal Saraf Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 56. (Paragraph 13 to 28) "13. The appellant, in the instant case, has been facing the criminal prosecution for almost more than two and a half decades. The speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the instant case, in the last twenty six years, not even a single prosecution witness had been examined. It was urged that for more than one reasons, the prosecution, in the instant case, cannot be permitted to continue. The proceedings taken by the respondents against the appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21." In a number of cases, this Court on consideration of peculiar facts and circumstance of individual cases had quashed the proceedings. 16. In Rakesh Saxena v. State through C.B.I. [1987] 1 SCR 173, this Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that any further continuance of the prosecution after lapse of more than six years in the case of the appellant who was merely a trader at the lowest rung of the hierarchy in the Foreign Exchange Division of the Bank is uncalled for, particularly, in view of the complicated nature of the offence charged. This Court, in the case of Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1988) Cri. LJ 1803 quashed the proceedings on the ground of delay in investigation and commencement of trial. The investigation commenced in November 1976 and the case was registered on comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion prior to his conviction; (b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and (c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx" This Court also observed that while determining whether undue delay has in fact occurred, one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on what is called, the systematic delays. The sum and substance is that it is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time limit for trial of offence. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. 20. This Court, as per the majority in a seven-Judge Bench, in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) Cri. LJ 2547 came to the conclusion and declared that this Court can interpret the law and in the process remove any lacuna, fill the gaps in the Legis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily relative, and that it is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. In another case of U.S. Supreme Court, Pollard v. United States 1957) 352 US 354, 1 L Ed 2d 393, 77 S Ct 481, it was recognized that whether delay in completing a prosecution amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of rights depends upon the circumstances, and that the delays must not be purposeful or oppressive. 22. It was recognized that "the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is an important safeguard (1) to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, (2) to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation, and (3) to limit the possibilities that long delays will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself. Adhering to the views expressed in earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is necessarily relative; that it is consistent with delays; that whether delay in completing a prosecution amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of rights depends upon the circumstances and that the delay must not be purposeful or oppressive." 23. In Smith v. Hooey (1969) 393 US 374, 21 L Ed 2d 607, 89 S Ct 575, it was reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public trial...". It may be pointed out, in this connection, that there is a Federal Act of 1974 called 'Speedy Trial Act' establishing a set of time-limits for carrying out the major events, e.g., information, indictment, arraignment, in the prosecution of criminal cases. In this case, this Court further observed as under: "The right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. This right has been actuated in the recent past and the courts have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. In fact, lot of cases are coming before the courts for quashing of proceedings on the ground of inordinate and undue delay stating that the invocation of this right even need not await formal indictment or charge." The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India, the State Governments and all concerned authorities must take necessary steps immediately so that the important constitutional right of the accused of a speedy trial does not remain only on papers or is a mere formality. 28. In the instant case not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution in the last twenty six years without there being any lapse on behalf of the appellant. Permitting the State to continue with the prosecution and trial any further would be total abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the criminal proceedings are quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of." 12. As discussed above, in the case on hand, it is pending for trial from the year 2003. The second respondent after a period of 3 years from the date of final report, filed a petition for further investigation. It was ordered after a period of 5 years from the date of filing. It was ordered by the Trial Court for further investigation after a period of 8 years from the date of further investigation. Therefore, it causes 21 years delay in the process of trial. As the judgment held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that no general guideline can be fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
