Back
Justice Delayed: Calcutta HC Cracks Whip on 39-Year-Old Murder Case Limbo
In a stark rebuke to judicial inertia, the at its has ordered the expeditious of a 1987 murder case to the . Justice Jay Sengupta, hearing a by Anil Chandra Barman—one of 80 accused—decried the "very unfortunate" delay that has kept the case from even reaching trial stage, despite a filed in 1990 and a prior directive.
Origins of a Forgotten File: From 1987 to Endless Wait
The saga began with Case No. 26 on , invoking for rioting, unlawful assembly, grievous hurt, and murder. A followed on , naming 80 individuals. Yet, nearly four decades later, the jurisdictional magistrate had failed to commit the case to , citing absconding accused and issuing warrants. A High Court order mandating was ignored, leaving petitioner Barman, now retired, without pension benefits due to the pendency.
As reported in contemporary coverage, this inertia exemplifies systemic lapses, with the lodged almost 39 years prior and no progress toward trial.
Petitioner's Cry and State's Nod: Arguments Unfold
Barman's counsel,
,
, and
, highlighted the personal toll: the petitioner, innocent of flight, suffers unduly from co-accused absconding. The delay blocks his post-retirement pension, underscoring that
"the present petitioner cannot suffer"
for others' absence.
The State, represented by
and
, concurred, arguing that
"it would be for the
that the criminal proceeding be expedited."
No opposition to acceleration emerged, uniting parties against the drag.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: No More Excuses
Justice Sengupta pierced the veil of delay, noting no precedents were needed to affirm the obvious injustice. The core principle: accused cannot bear the brunt of procedural paralysis, especially post a specific judicial nudge in . Distinguishing between appearing and absconding accused, the court invoked as a practical tool under criminal procedure norms, ensuring trials advance without total paralysis.
This aligns with broader calls for speedy justice, echoing undertones without direct citation.
Key Observations from the Bench
"It is, indeed, a very unfortunate case where although the was lodged in 1987 and a was submitted far back in 1990, the matter could not even be committed to the . This is despite the fact that in , there was a specific direction passed by this Court to do the needful in this regard."
"For this, the present petitioner cannot suffer. He is not even getting pension after retirement because of pendency of this case."
"In view of the above and in the , learned jurisdictional court is directed to conclude the proceeding regarding commitment of the case to the , preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order..."
Swift Directives: A Roadmap to Resolution
The court disposed of C.R.R. 18 of 2024 with firm orders: the magistrate must finalize
within six weeks, complying with formalities and
against appearing accused if needed. The
shall then expedite the trial
"as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment."
Implications ripple wide—reinforcing accountability for lower courts, protecting individual rights amid delays, and signaling zero tolerance for pre-trial stagnation. For Barman, pension relief beckons; for justice, a precedent against procrastination.
Urgent certified copies were greenlit, ensuring no further hitches (Case: , delivered ).
