9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial and conclude the same at the earliest. 3. The Appellant is an Accused in FIR No. 02/2006, Vigilance Department, Lucknow Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Vigilance Department of State of Uttar Pradesh commenced an inquiry on a complaint filed by one R.K. Choudhary. Writ Petition No. 45047 of 2005 was filed by the Appellant in the High Court challenging the Vigilance Inquiry initiated against him. The High Court directed on 22.08.2005 that unless complainant R.K. Choudhary is examined first no inquiry can be proceeded with against the Appellant. On 08.12.2005, the Secretary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has further stated in his application that although FIR was lodged on 09.01.2006 but it got delayed by tactics opted by the Accused persons. The Vigilance Department completed the investigation after about 14 years and still the Accused persons are trying to get away from the charges. The aforesaid application filed by Respondent No. 2 came before the High Court for consideration on 09.09.2020 which application stood disposed of by the following order: The instant application has been filed to expedite and conclude Special Trial No. 520 of 2020, "State of U.P. v. Sanjai Tiwari" relating to Case Crime No. 02 of 2006, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought into the notice of the High Court when the order impugned was passed. It is submitted that even lodging of FIR against the Appellant is challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed on non-appearance on 29.01.2020. Appellant filed a restoration/recall application seeking restoration of Writ Petition No. 45047/2005 on 15.06.2020. 7. Learned Counsel for the State submits that all criminal trials where offences involved are under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be held on day to day basis and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the High Court. 8. Respondent No. 2 although had appeared in this proceeding on 03.11.2020 through counsel but subsequently has instructed his counsel not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de of Criminal Procedure cannot ordinarily be entertained by the High Court. A criminal trial of an Accused is conducted in accordance with procedure as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the obligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to the Accused if found guilty. The present is not a case where prosecution or even the employer of the Accused have filed an application either before the trial court or in any other court seeking direction as prayed by Respondent No. 2 in his application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. With regard to locus of a third party to challenge the criminal proceedings or to seek relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court while dismissing the appeals filed by the H.S. Choudhary and others made the following observations: 26. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified Accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. 27. We, in the above background of the case, after bestowing our anxious and painstaking consideration and careful thought to all aspects of the case and deeply examining the rival contentions of the parties both collectively and individually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of Public Interest Litigants. 15. We are fully satisfied that Respondent No. 2 has no locus in the present case to file application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure asking the Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. We have already observed that all criminal trials where offences involved under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be concluded at an early date and normally no exception can be taken to the order of the High Court directing the trial court to expedite the criminal trial but in the present case the fact is that proceedings have been initiated by Respondent No. 2 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
