Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Natubhai Gomanbhai Patel – Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory of Dadra And Nagar Haveli Silvassa and another - Respondents
Cri. W.P. No. 4934 of 2015 along with Cri. Appln. No. 701 of 2015
Decided On : 05-07-2016
The Court held that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had not been violated. The Court considered the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner, and the nature of the charges against him. The Court found that the petitioner had not asserted his right to a speedy trial until after the charges had been framed and that he had consistently remained absent from the trial proceedings. The Court also found that the charges against the petitioner were serious and that there was material on record making out offences against him. The Court concluded that quashing the trial would amount to scuttling a trial without adjudication and giving an easy exit to the petitioner from the portals of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of parliament, was charged with various offences, including rioting, criminal trespass, and mischief. The charges arose out of an incident in 1999 in which the petitioner and a mob of people entered the hotel of the complainant and caused damage to the property. The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court seeking to quash the trial on the ground that his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated. The petitioner argued that the trial had been delayed for over 12 years and that he had not been responsible for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The Court considered the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner, and the nature of the charges against him. The Court found that the petitioner had not asserted his right to a speedy trial until after the charges had been framed and that he had consistently remained absent from the trial proceedings. The Court also found that the charges against the petitioner were serious and that there was material on record making out offences against him. The Court concluded that quashing the trial would amount to scuttling a trial without adjudication and giving an easy exit to the petitioner from the portals of justice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The Court considered the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner, and the nature of the charges against him. The Court found that the petitioner had not asserted his right to a speedy trial until after the charges had been framed and that he had consistently remained absent from the trial proceedings. The Court also found that the charges against the petitioner were serious and that there was material on record making out offences against him. The Court concluded that quashing the trial would amount to scuttling a trial without adjudication and giving an easy exit to the petitioner from the portals of justice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's petition.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner, by this petition, prays for quashing the trial in R.C.C. No. 45/2000 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa on the ground that the petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. It is prayed, in the alternative, that the petitioner/accused be discharged from the various offences on the ground that the charges are baseless and there is no evidence to prove the offences against the petitioner.
3. The submissions of Shri Jethmalani, the learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner, can be summarised as follows :-
(a) On 30-12-1999 an incident took place by which the petitioner, along with other persons, by way of an alleged unlawful assembly have allegedly entered the premises of the complainant’s hotel.
(b) An FIR came to be registered vide CR No. 294/1999 for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on 31-12-1999.
(c) The petitioner who is accused No. 4 has not committed any offence and has not caused hurt to the informant.
(d) It was not a preplanned attack.
(e) Charge-sheet is filed on 13-4-2000.
(f) After 1-9-2003, case RCC No. 45/2000 surprisingly went missing, did not appear on board and is believed to have been treated as a dormant case file for reasons unknown to the petitioner.
(g) The petitioner is a public figure and has been elected as a member of the parliament in 2009 and again in 2014. Presently, he is a sitting M.P. of the ruling party.
(h) The Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections were scheduled on 25th October, 2015.
(i) Case RCC No. 45/2000 was surprisingly taken on board after being retrieved from the Dormant file status.
(j) On 8-10-2015 after the file was taken on board, a non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against all the accused.
(k) The petitioner has always been cooperating with the proceedings in the case.
(l) It was neither at the instance of the petitioner, nor the petitioner’s fault that the file was in dormant stage.
(m) The petitioner, even if it is assumed that the offence could be proved, cannot be said to have committed a grave or serious offence.
(n) No hurt was caused to anybody in the incident that took place.
(o) The weapon that was carried by the mob and not by the petitioner/accused, was either a cricket stump or an iron rod.
(p) The charges which have been reproduced in the memo of the Petition would indicate that there is no serious charge against the petitioner, except under section 442 of the Indian Penal Code.
(q) Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh De vs. Archana Guha and others, 1994 Supp(3) SCC 735, Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 MhLJ Online (Cri.) (S.C.) 17 = (2008) 16 SCC 117 and Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2010(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 493 = AIR 2009 SC 1822.
(r) The right of the petitioner under Article 21 to a speedy trial has been infringed.
(s) He has a right to speedy trial which cannot be taken away.
(t) The charges were framed on 21-10-2015 and the petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4279 of 2015 raising a grievance that the charges have been wrongly framed.
(u) By order dated 28-10-2015, the petitioner/accused succeeded in this Court and the Trial Court was directed to re-frame the charges under orders of this Court.
(v) The delay in the prosecution is not attributed to the conduct of the petitioner.
(w) Nature of offence is neither grave nor serious.
(x) The case was in Dormant state from 2003 to 2015 for about 12 years and this cannot be attributed to the conduct of the petitioner.
(y) The petitioner had prayed for transfer of proceedings by filing Criminal application No. 701/2015 before this C
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
