2015 (4) TMI 1312 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of proceedings pending - challenged on the ground that on account of inordinate delay in completing the trial his right of speedy trial as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed - whether the prosecution should be dropped against the applicant herein on the ground that his right to have a speedy trial as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been violated? HELD THAT - Since 2009 the health of the applicant has deteriorated to a considerable extent and as on today he is aged 70 years. Till this date the trial Court has not been able to frame charge. The trial Court could have been directed to proceed further with the trial expeditiously and finish it of within a stipulated period of time but it appears that despite many such orders being passed in the past in different matters the Courts have not be able to complete the trials. Nothing has been pointed out by the State that the delay has occurred on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the applicant herein. In HUSSAINARA KHATOON VERSUS HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR PATNA 1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court gave anxious consideration to the pathetic plight of under trial prisoners languishing in jail for years together and held that any procedure which would not ensure a speedy trial could not be regarded as reasonable fair or just and that the right of an accused to speedy trial rather a reasonably expeditious trial is imbibed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to life means right to live with full human dignity without humuliation and deprivation or degradation of any sort. The impact of being an accused is evident from the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore there can be no doubt that the tag of accused would deprive a man the right to live with full human dignity. It is these facets and factors that fetched fair trial the recognition as a human right. Speedy trial is an integral part of fair trial. Therefore the right to speedy trial is also a human right and no civilized society can deny the same to an accused. Furthermore it should always be the concern of the society to see that a real culprit is given the condign punishment at the earliest and also to see that an accused is given an early opportunity to clear the cloud of suspicion shrouded around him and to remove the tag of accused . The said purpose in view that is founded on social interest could not be achieved if trial is unduly delayed as trial is the sole device to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused. Thus even if the entire case of the prosecution as accepted as true no case of forgery is made out. The case on hand is one in which a school availed of monitory benefit in the form of salary/maintenance grant twice by placing a bill knowingly well that the amount earlier had already been disbursed. The monitory benefit was in favour of the school. Of course the case of the prosecution is that the applicant herein and other coaccused had acted in collusion with the each other. This is a case wherein the prosecution deserves to be dropped so far as the applicant is concerned on the ground that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Legality and validity of the order rejecting the discharge application.

Detailed Analysis:

Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial:
The applicant, aged 70, sought quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.2106 of 1994 on grounds of inordinate delay, claiming infringement of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case has been pending since 1994, with no significant progress, including the framing of charges. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay was not attributable to the applicant, who has been suffering from severe health issues, including a brain hemorrhage and cardiac problems.

The court acknowledged the applicant's health conditions and the undue delay in the trial process. The Supreme Court's precedents in cases like State through CBI Vs. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerukar and Mahendra Lal Das vs. State of Bihar were cited, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is part of the fair, just, and reasonable procedure under Article 21. The court noted that the delay was not due to any tactics by the applicant but rather systemic inefficiencies, thus violating the applicant's fundamental rights.

Legality and Validity of the Order Rejecting the Discharge Application:
The applicant challenged the order dated 20th August 2014, which rejected his discharge application. The court examined the circumstances leading to the rejection, including the prosecution's claim that the applicant was involved in criminal misappropriation by a public servant. However, the court found no substantial progress in the trial to justify the prolonged delay.

The court referred to the report from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which failed to explain the delay from 1994 to 2013. The court highlighted that despite multiple adjournments and exemption applications, there was no valid explanation for the lack of progress.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the applicant's right to a speedy trial was indeed violated, warranting the quashing of the proceedings. The court also found that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the continuation of the trial, especially given the applicant's health and the undue delay.

Judgment:
The court allowed the application, quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2106 of 1994 against the applicant (original accused No.3). All consequential proceedings were terminated, and the rule was made absolute.