1996(4) Supreme 37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy & S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No.1128 of 1986
Decided on 1-5-1996
(ii) Criminal Justice System-Pendency of criminal proceedings-Offences for which accused are charged punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five years- Trials pending for two years or more-Accused in jail for a period of six months or more-Direction for release of such accused on bail or on personal bond, (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sec. 437)-Exception-(It shall not apply to cases specified in para 4). (Paras 1(b) & 4)
(iii) Criminal Justice System-Pendency of criminal proceedings-Offences for which accused are charged punishable with seven years or less-Trials pending for two years or more-Accused in jail for a period of one year or more-Direction for release of such accused on bail or on personal bond-Exception-It shall not apply to cases specified in para 4. (Paras 1(c) & 4)
(iv) Criminal Justice System-Traffic offences-Trial pending for more than two years-Direction for discharge of such accused-Court to close the cases-Exception-It shall not apply to cases specified in para 4. (Paras 2(a) & 4)
(v) Criminal Justice System-Cases pending for more than two years are compoundable with permission of Court-If trial still not commenced-Court after hearing the parties shall discharge or acquit the accused and close such cases-Exception specified in para 4. (Paras 2(b) & 4)
(vi) Criminal Justice System-Cases pending pertain to offences which are non-cognizable and bailable-Pendency for more than two years-Trials still not commenced-Court shall discharge or acquit accused and close such cases-Exception specified in para 4. (Paras 2(c) & 4)
(vii) Criminal Justice System-Offences punishable with fine only and not of recurring nature-Pendency for more than one year-Trial still not commenced-Court shall discharge or acquit accused and close such cases,-Exception specified in para 4. (Paras 2(d) & 4)
(viii) Criminal Justice System-Offences punishable with imprisonment upto one year-Pendency for more than one year-Trials still not commenced-Court shall discharge or acquit accused and close such cases-Exceptions specified in para 4. (Paras 2(e) & 4)
(ix) Criminal Justice System-Offences punishable with imprisonment upto three years-Pendency for than two years-Trial still not commenced-Court shall discharge or acquit accused and close such cases-Exceptions specified in para 4. (Paras 2(f) & 4)
JUDGMENT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-"Common Cause", a registered society espousing public causes has asked for certain general directions in this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, with respect to cases pending in criminal court all over the country. The directions asked for are:
(a) quashing of all proceedings against persons accused of offences under the Motor Vehicles Act where the proceedings were initiated more than one year ago and are still pending in any court in the country;
(b) to direct the unconditional release of the accused and dismissal of all proceedings pending in Criminal Courts with respect to offences under Indian Penal Code or other penal statutes which have been pending for more than three years from the date of their institution and for which offences the maximum sentence provided under law is not more than six months - with or without fine. This direction is sought in respect of all prosecutions whether lodged by police, other governmental agency or by a private complainant;
(c) directing the unconditional release of all the accused and dismissal of criminal proceedings against persons who have been in police or judicial custody for a period of more than three years from the date of their arrest or remand to such custody, where the offences alleged are not punishable with more than seven years - with or without fine; and
(d) directing the unconditional release of the accused and dismissal of proceedings against persons accused of offences under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code [I.P.C.] where the proceedings have been pending in any Court for more than one year from the date of their institution.
The Petitioner has requested that the aforesaid directions should apply not only to cases pending in Courts on the date of the passing of the order but also to cases executed hereinafter.
Notices were directed to Union of India and the State Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and to the Delhi Administration. Counters have also been filed by them.
We are of the opinion that the suggestions made are well-meaning and consistent with the spirit underlying Part-III of the Constitution of India and the criminal justice system. They deserve serious consideration by this Court and the High Courts in the country. It is a matter of common experience that in many cases where the persons are accused of minor offences punishable not more than three years - or even less - with or without fine, the proceedings are kept pending for years together. If they are poor and helpless, they languish in jails for long periods either because there is no one to bail them out or because there is no one to think of them. They very pendency of criminal proceedings for long periods by itself operates as an engine of oppression. Quite often, the private complainants institute these proceedings out of oblique motives. Even in case of offences punishable for seven years or less - with or without fine - the prosecutions are kept pending for years and years together in criminal courts. In a majority of these cases, whether instituted by police or private complainants, the accused belong to poorer sections of the society, who are unable to afford competent legal advice. Instance have also come before courts where the accused, who are in jail, are not brought to the court on every date of hearing and for that reason also the cases undergo several adjournments. It appears essential to issue appropriate directions to protect and effectuate the right to life and liberty of the citizens guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also necessary to ensure that these criminal prosecutions do not operate as engines of oppression. Accordingly, the following directions are made which shall be valid not only for the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Delhi but for all the States and the Union Territories:
1(a) Where the offences under I.P.C. or any
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.