The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow for the framing of charges if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The judgment also highlights the need for speedy termination of prosecutions and the adverse effects of delays in criminal proceedings.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. In both the cases Order under challenge is rejection of discharge petition by an Order dated 29th November, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1994/26 of 1996 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Aurangabad and, as such, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed by a common Judgment.

2. It was a case of massacre, in which six innocent persons belonging to weaker section of society were brutally killed in the night by the member of powerful community and means, while they were sleeping in two huts (Palani-shed prepared by straw and bamboos) and at least four persons received injuries. Still the accused persons have succeeded in delaying the commencement of trial for more than 23 years from the date of occurrence. In this case, occurrence had taken place in the night of 20th September, 1986.

3. At this juncture this Court is tempted to reproduce certain lines of Honble Supreme Court which was noticed in a case reported in 1995 (3) Cr.L.J.2935 (G.N. Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and Ors.), which is as follows:

(I) It is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal Courts excel in slow-motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are heavy, even the service of process is delayed and, still more exasperating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of Prosecutions...." The slow-motion becomes much slow-motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. FIRs are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory Orders are interfered with. At every step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing and Writ Petitions. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made. And if ever the case reaches the stage of trial after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll: the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears; the Prosecution loses interest- the result is an all too familiar one. We are sad to say that repeated admonitions of this Court have not deterred superior Courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages of Criminal Cases. Such interference should be only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be a matter of course.

4. During the investigation materials were collected showing involvement of Petitioners of both the cases and thereafter, chargesheet was submitted in the month of March, 1989. In between the date of occurrence and submission of chargesheet also, many unhappy things have occurred, which will be succinctly discussed later on. After a long delay when the case reached to the stage of charge, petitions were filed on behalf of accused persons for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Yet again though discharge petition was filed on 28th February, 1995, the same was kept pending for several years and rejected finally by the learned 1 st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 29th November, 2000, i.e. after more than five years from the date of filing of the discharge petition. This shows in sensivity of all the concerned, whether it was the Investigating Agency, Prosecuting Agency, Defence or "Someone else", but, fact remains that discharge petition in the present case, in which six lives were brutally taken, was kept pending for more than five years. The Order of rejection of discharge petition was challenged before this Court by filing the aforesaid petitions. Cr. Misc. No. 2958 of 2001 was; filed on 31st January, 2001 against the Order dated 29th November, 2000, which was an Order of rejection of discharge petition. The Order of rejection of discharge petition was very much clear and the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, while rejecting the petition for discharge, had perused the FIR and statements of witnesses, contained in the case diary and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that there were sufficient materials in the case diary to procee