IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, requiring trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely witness examination.

ORDER :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This petition has been filed for a limited direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa to conclude trial proceedings expeditiously within stipulated time in connection with Criminal Case No.251/2022 for the offence under Sections 420, 506 & 34 of the IPC registered against the petitioner herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR bearing Crime No.151/2022 has been registered against the petitioner on 12.06.2022 at Police Station Nawagarh, Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Sections 420, 506 & 34 of the IPC. He has filed order-sheets of proceedings of the trial Court to submit that on 14.10.2022 charge-sheet has been filed but not a single witness has been examined so far. Even on several dates the Additional District Prosecution Officer (for short the “ADPO”) has not made appearance. Further, on 07.11.2022 also, when the case was fixed for framing of charges, the ADPO did not remain present before the trial Court. Thereafter, on 24.03.2023, in absence of the ADPO, the trial Court heard the arguments and framed the charges and posted the case for evidence on 02.05.2023. On the said date, though ADPO was present but no witness was turned up. Even on the next date of hearing, no summons were issued. Thereafter, the case was listed on 25.07.2023, 11.10.2023 and on 30.10.2023. On 30.10.2023, one of the witnesses namely, Nitish Kumar was present however the case was adjourned on the ground that court hour was over and case was fixed for 05.01.2024. On the said date, two witnesses namely Pradeep Kumar Katakwar and Nitish Kumar Kashap were present but at the request of defence counsel, their cross-examination was not done and case was fixed for 09.02.2024. On 09.02.2024 statement of witenss Nitish Kashyap could not be completed and statement of other witness Pradeep Kumar Kashyap was not conducted due to paucity of time. Learned counsel draws attention towards order dated 07.03.2020 wherein in absence of the ADPO, the trial Court has not examined the witness and mentioned the reason that there is direction of the District and Sesesions Judge, Janjgir Champa that the statement of the witness in the offence of Section 420 IPC has to be recorded in present of Prosecution Officer only.

In view of the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has a right of speedy trial and prays for suitable direction to the concerned trial Court.

3. Looking to the manner in which trial is going on before the trial Court, this Court has requested Shri T. K. Jha, Advocate, to assist in the matter as an Amicus. Learned Amicus submits that it is the duty of the Court to firstly appreciate the physical and mental inconvenience caused to the witnesses present before the Court on the fixed date. Further, the trial Court should consider that witnesses are eyes and ears of the trial case and while visiting the court again and again their time is wasted. It should also consider the money spent for journey of the witnesses and the precious time of the Court. He submits that the trial getting protracted many a time to the greatest disadvantage of the prosecution. Learned Amicus further submits that even the rules have been framed by the High Court in this regard. Rule 709 of the CG Rules and Orders (Criminal) (for short “Rules and Orders”) says that a State case should be finished within thirty days and there are guidelines to keep witness attendance either repeatedly or for several days. For the sake of brevity the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-

709. A State case should be finished within thirty days, and a complaint case within forty-five. It should be noted how long the magistrate takes to bring the accused to trial, and bring up the witnesses against him, how long he takes to hear the evidence, and how long he takes to deliver judgment once the evidence is closed. It is