Back
B. R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR
Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER
1. Vide order dated 04.10.2021, the High Court had initially fixed a time frame of nine months in concluding the trial. Thereafter, again by order dated 10.06.2022, the period was extended by six months. It appears that since the trial could not be completed within the said period, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide letter dated 16.12.2022 requested for extension of six months for disposing of the case.
2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 06.01.2023 granted extension till 31.03.2023 i.e. almost by a period of three months.
3. Shri Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a number of witnesses are not yet examined and direction as is issued would prevent the Trial Court to decide the matter in a judicious manner.
4. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the original complainant, submit that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the order dated 04.10.2021, which had fixed the time schedule of nine months was challenged before this Court and the special leave petition challenging the same i.e. S
The importance of expeditious disposal of criminal trials and criticism of approaching higher courts instead of cooperating with Trial Courts.
Orders for expeditious proceedings should only be passed with cogent and extremely compelling reasons and after examining the matter from all angles. Pending matters should also be considered expedit....
Dismissal of a bail application does not necessitate an early trial conclusion
Judicial restraint must be exercised by High Courts to avoid unjust criticism of subordinate judiciary.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious trial and directed the trial to proceed on a day-to-day basis, while extending the time for completion of the proceedings.
The court emphasizes timely disposal of cases to uphold justice, directing completion of trial within a stipulated timeframe.
The court's discretion under Article 136 and the importance of expeditious trial completion
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that trials should not be unduly delayed, balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.
The court's decision emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
