IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Right to a speedy public trial is applicable not only to actual proceedings in Court but includes within its sweep the preceding police investigation in a Criminal prosecution as well.
2. A callous and inordinate prolonged delay of seven years or more (which does not arise from the default of the accused or is otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason) in investigation and original trial of offences other than capital ones would plainly violate the constitutional guarantee of a speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J. - This judgment is now a part of the trilogy, beginning with the Division Bench case of the State of Bihar v. Ram Daras Ahir1, and expanded in the subsequent Full Bench decision in The State of Bihar v. Maksudan Singh.2 It is, perhaps, illustrative of the poets hope of freedom slowly broadening down from precedent to precedent." The significant issues, which necessitated this reference to the Full Bench in this set of two connected cases may, perhaps, be precisely formulated as under:

(1) Whether the fundamental right to a speedy public trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution by presidential mandate is confined to only capital offences or is attracted to all offences generically?

(2) Whether the aforesaid right to a speedy trial is applicable only to the proceedings in court stricto sensu or includes within its sweep the preceding Police investigations as well?

(3) Is a speedy trial equally mandated by both the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

(4) Whether the ratios in Ramdaras Ahir's case (supra) and in Maksudan Singh's case (supra) are applicable equally to all offences and irrespective of the fact whether the proceedings are a trial or an appeal against acquittal?

(5) Whether an outer time limit to concretise the right to a speedy public trial is envisioned by principle or precedent?

2. The matrix of the background giving rise to the issues aforesaid may well be noticed from Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 262 of 1985 (Madheshwardhari Singh v. The State of Bihar). The facts therein perhaps unfold a tale that may well harrow up our legal souls and make jurisprudential hair stand on end, like the proverbial quills on the fretful procupine. The petitioner, Madheshwardhari Singh, is a Class I Government servant and is at present Poultry Development Officer under the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Bihar. More than 20 years ago, during 1964-66, he was posted as the Assistant Director, Central Poultry Farm, Patna, and one Satya Narayan Sharma, a Store Keeper, was his subordinate on the said farm. On the basis of a written complaint (Annexure 1), made by the petitioner's successor, Syed Jalal Ahmed, Assistant Director, Central Poultry Farm, Patna, a first information report dated the 20th November, 1966, Gardanibagh Police Station Case No. 32 (11) 1966, was lodged under Sections 467, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. . In the said first information report, Satya Narayn Sharma alone was named as an accused. However, with the nature of the allegations made therein a cloud of suspicion was raised against the petitioner as well and the sword of damocles of being implicated therein hung perilously over his head. It was, however, not till as long as a passage of 9 years that it finally fell upon him. The Police investigation in the case dragged on, and, on the 29th September, 1975, the petitioner was also made an accused in the said case. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner, and repeatedly reiterated, that this was done with a mala fide intention in order to jeopardise the career and future promotion of the petitioner, so that he may not get promoted to the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer. It is highlighted that the supposed allegations rested, as they were sought to be, on official records, which were in the Police custody or within easy reach for all these 9 years, and, the belated stage at which he was implicated is thus by itself significant to indicate malice. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna, and, was granted provisional bail on Sunday, the 29th April, 1975, and, after numerous adjournments and extensions, the same was confirmed on the 21st of November, 1975. Thereafter, it was on the 30th of January, 1976, that a charge-sheet was filed and after cognizance having been taken, the case was transferred to Shree P.N. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, for disposal.