Back
: Upholds Rights Under Section 330 BNSS
The has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the right to a , even as it declined to quash a decade-old . In a judgment that carries broader implications for the entire state judiciary, Justice V Srishananda directed all trial courts to strictly adhere to —corresponding to —to expedite cases by admitting without .
A 13-Year Wait for Justice
The petition was filed by Shri C Swamy, a port officer from Mangalore, who sought to quash a dated , in Special C.C. No. 268/2013 pending before the . Swamy argued that the inordinate delay in concluding the trial—spanning over 13 years—violated his to a under . He claimed he was always ready and willing to cooperate and that no delay could be attributed to his conduct.
The , represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, opposed the quashing, contending that the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution. The noted that 54 witnesses had already been examined and undertook to conclude the trial within three months, subject to the petitioner's cooperation.
The Court’s Diagnosis: An Underused Procedural Tool
Rather than quashing the , the High Court focused on a systemic issue: the near-total disuse of (now ). This provision allows documents whose is not disputed to be admitted in evidence without formally proving the author's signature. The court observed that in trials, voluminous documents are often placed on record, many of which are undisputed. Yet, trial courts routinely require witnesses to be called merely to mark such documents, causing unnecessary delay.
“It is the experience of this court that provisions of corresponding to is hardly put to use,” Justice Srishananda noted.
To obviate this procedural bottleneck, the court directed that compliance with the section be carried out at the commencement of the trial itself. By marking by , the prosecution could drop a good number of witnesses, thereby ensuring a quicker trial.
“Such an exercise shall be carried out at the commencement of the trial itself, so that the documents which are not disputed by the accused party can be marked by of both the parties, which would facilitate the prosecution to drop good number of witnesses, which will further ensure the laudable object of the namely which is also recognized as ,” the judgment stated.
The Verdict: A Directive to All Trial Courts
The High Court disposed of the without quashing the , instead granting time until for the trial judge to conclude the proceedings. It emphasized that both parties must cooperate, including by admitting and marking and dropping unnecessary witnesses.
In a move with far-reaching impact, the court ordered that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all District Judiciary through the Principal District Judges and the , subject to the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This directive effectively mandates every trial court in Karnataka to actively use to streamline evidence and reduce case backlog.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- On the underuse of procedural law: “It is the experience of this court that provisions of corresponding to is hardly put to use.”
- On the purpose of early compliance: “Such an exercise shall be carried out at the commencement of the trial itself, so that the documents which are not disputed by the accused party can be marked by … which will further ensure the laudable object of the namely .”
- On the consequence of non-use: “Many times the voluminous documents contain some documents for which there cannot be any dispute as to its and for placing those documents… witnesses are to be called and they need to be examined formally.”
The judgment serves as a practical reminder to the legal fraternity that procedural efficiency is not an end in itself but a means to uphold the constitutional promise of a . For C Swamy, the wait continues—but the has ensured that the trial will now move faster, and that similar delays may be avoided for countless others waiting for justice.
