IMPORTANT POINTS
1- A deliberate attempt to delay the trial, in order to hamper the accused, is weighed heavily against the prosecution. However, unintentional and unavoidable delays or administrative factors over which prosecution has no control, cannot be violative of accuseds right to a speedy trial.
2. The length of the delay is not sufficient in itself to warrant a finding that the accused was deprived of the right to a speedy trial.
3. Prescribing a time limit for the trial court to terminate the proceedings or, at the end thereof, to acquit or discharge the accused in all cases will amount to legislation, which cannot be done by judicial directives within the arena of judicial law making power available to constitutional courts; however, liberally the courts may interpret Articles 21, 32, 141 and 142.

Headnote:As per H. L. DATTU, JJ.
        Constitution of India,1950-Article32-Petitioners facing trial for assassination of Shri. L.N. Mishra, the then Union Minister for Railways by a bomb explosion - Delay in completion of trial for more than 37 years - Writ petitions by petitioners to quash prosecution primarily on ground of violation of their fundamental right of speedy trial -Evidence on record that prosecution, apart from seeking 4-5 adjournments, right from 1991 till 2012, was not responsible for delay in any manner whatsoever- Delay in trial of petitioners from 1991 to 2012 was solely attributable to petitioners and other accused persons-Looking into long adjournments sought by accused persons, accused could not take advantage or benefit of right of speedy trial by causing the delay and then use that delay in order to assert their rights- Writ Petitions dismissed with direction to trial judge to take up the case on day to day basis and conclude the proceedings as early as possible, without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments (Paras 19 to 26)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present Writ Petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seek for the enforcement of petitioners fundamental right of "speedy trial" .The petitioners herein are the accused and tried for the assassination of Shri. L.N. Mishra, the then Union Railway Minister. It is the case of the prosecution that Shri. L.N. Mishra was injured in a bomb- blast at the Railway Station, Samastipur on 2.01.1975 and later succumbed to his injuries on 3.01.1975. The initial investigation was conducted by the Bihar C.I.D. and subsequently it was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation who filed charge sheet on 10.11.1975. Thereafter, this case was transferred by this Court to Delhi due to interference by the then Bihar Government. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, after framing the charges, initiated trial against the accused persons but, unfortunately, the trial is still pending for the past 37 years.
       Findings of the Court :
        Delay in trial of petitioners was solely attributable to petitioners and other accused persons. Looking into long adjournments sought by accused persons, accused could not take advantage or benefit of right of speedy trial by causing the delay and then use that delay in order to assert their rights. Writ Petitions were dismissed with direction to trial judge to take up the case on day to day basis and conclude the proceedings as early as possible, without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments.
       Result : Writ Petitions dismissed
        As Per CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD, J.
        Constitution of India,1950-Article32-Petitioners facing trial for assassination of Shri. L.N. Mishra, the then Union Minister for Railways by a bomb explosion - Delay in completion of trial for more than 37 years - Writ petitions by petitioners to quash prosecution primarily on ground of violation of their fundamental right of speedy trial-Relying upon decision in case of Abdul Rehman Antulays case held that while determining whether undue delay has occurred resulting in violation of Right to Speedy Trial one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on - what is called, the systemic delays- It is true that it is the obligation of the State to ensure a speedy trial and State includes judiciary as well, but a realistic and practical approach should be adopted in such matters instead of a pedantic one- Trial cannot be terminated merely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons thereof- Facts of the instant case not justified quashing of prosecution-Petitions dismissed (Paras 1 to 3)
       Facts of the Case :
        The Union Minister for Railways lost his life in a bomb explosion which took place at Samastipur Railway Station in the State of Bihar on 2nd of January, 1975. Petitioners are facing trial in the said case. Their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded and the trial is at the stage of argument. At this stage, petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and their prayer is to quash the prosecution primarily on the ground of violation of their fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
       Findings of the Court :
        Trial cannot be terminated merely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons thereof. Facts of the instant case not justified quashing of prosecution. Petitions were dismissed
       Result : Petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT

H. L. Dattu, J.-Reliefs sought in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same; therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These Criminal Writ Petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seek for the enforcement of petitioner’s fundamental right of “speedy trial” and for “quashing of Sessions Trial No. SC1/06”, pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi.

3. The petitioners herein are the accused and tried for the assassination of Shri. L.N. Mishra, the then Union Railway Minister. It is the case of the prosecution that Shri. L.N. Mishra was injured in a bomb- blast at the Railway Station, Samastipur on 2.01.1975 and later succumbed to his injuries on 3.01.1975. The initial investigation was conducted by the Bihar C.I.D. and subsequently it was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘C.B.I.’) who filed charge sheet on 10.11.1975. Thereafter, this case was transferred by this Court to Delhi vide its order dated 17.12.1979 due to interference by the then Bihar Government. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, after framing the charges, initiated trial against the accused persons but, unfortunately, the trial is still pending for the past 37 years. In 1987, the Petitioner(s) had preferred a Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 268/87 before this Court for quashing of the charges and proceedings in view of pending trial for over 12 years. This Court had disposed of the writ petitions vide its Order dated 10.12.1991 with a direction to the trial court to expeditiously complete the trial on day to day basis. However, the trial is still pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge despite the direction of this Court to expeditiously complete the trial. As of now, the statements of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Core (for short, ‘Cr. P.C.’) have been recorded, the Court witnesses have been examined as well as the recording of statements of defence witness is also complete and at the time of hearing of these petitions, we are informed by the learned counsel that the matter is now posted for arguments.

4. In view of delay in completion of trial for more than 37 years from date of the trial till date, the Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petitions praying for quashing of the charges and trial.

5. Shri. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial in the present case has been dragged on for more than 37 years and is still continuing and this amounts to violation of fundamental right of the accused to get speedy trial. He would submit that this Court has declared that right to speedy trial is a requirement under Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing right to life and liberty of a citizen. He would submit that better part of the life of the accused-petitioner has already been spent in the jail during trial and still, his fate is hanging in balance. He would contend that whether the accused would get convicted or acquitted is immaterial. The question here is; whether any judicial system would tolerate such as inordinate delay? Should the Supreme Court allow it to continue any more? He would further contend that this is a unique case for two reasons. Firstly, the prolongation of criminal trial is as long as 37 years and petitioners have spent better part of their human life in the jail. Secondly, this Court in the year 1991 while disposing of the petitioners writ petition, had issued specific directions to the trial court to expeditiously complete the trial, which mandate has been conveniently ignored by the trial court, which amounts to total ignorance and indifference to the directions issued by this Court. He would further contend that the fact that the judicial system works in a particular way cannot be a justification for its failure to complete the trial. He would submit that Article 21 not only protects the accused but also takes into consideration t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 543

Cases Referred (14)