Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1151 - SC - Indian LawsGrave irregularities in the grant of licences - Misuse of official position for grant of Unified Access Licenses - Blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences - huge loss to the public exchequer running into crores - No action taken by TRAI and DoT - licensees sold off stake/equities - Who failed to fulfill roll-out obligations - Non-compliance with other conditions of licence - Conducted investigation for grant of huge loans by the public sector and other banks to some companies - Public Interest - Constitutional power of superior court to give direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in a specific time - Speedy trial under Article 21 - HELD THAT:- Monitoring of criminal investigation is the function of investigating agency and not that of the Court - HELD THAT:- Crores and crores of tax payers’ money is being spent for investigating crimes in our country since every such incident is a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime which tarnish the image not only of the investigating agency but judicial system as well. Once investigation fails, Court will face with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and guilty gets away from the clutches of law. More and more demands are now coming before the Courts for its monitoring of investigation relating to crimes committed by influential persons and persons who have political influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take such a course in the larger public interest. This Court has taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted in the proper Court, the process of Court monitoring investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the matter. But, so far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings. Monitoring the trial proceedings - HELD THAT:- No Court, other than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to monitor the proceedings pending before it. Order dated 11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive to the litigants to misuse of Court’s system by indulging in unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire trial process. Criminal justice system’s procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and business. already indicated that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial proceedings The decision on the case of A.R. ANTULAY VERSUS. R.S. NAIK & ORS. [1988 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT] followed. Court found no good reason either to frame guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the orders passed by this Court. In the result, Writ Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed
|