( 1 ) A cry for speedy justice. This is what this petition is all about filed by friends and relatives of uphaar Cinema Fire Victims who have formed an association to seek justice. All they are clamouring for is the speedy trial of Sessions Case No. 1/99 pending before Ld. ASJ, Ms. Mamta Sehgal.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS grievance is that even after 4 1/2 years of the fire incident, trial in the case was yet to take off and was proceeding at a snail s pace. Statements of available prosecution witnesses were either not recorded or deferred for non-availability of defence counsel or some other pretext. Adjournments were being granted to the defence lawyers on one ground or the other resulting in deferring of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses who were otherwise in attendance. Out of 191 prosecution witnesses, only 12 were examined so far.

( 3 ) LD. SENIOR counsel for petitioner Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi invited our attention to Supreme Court judgment in State of U. P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001) 4 SCC 667 to bring out how the mandate of Section 309 Cr. P. C. was being breached though examination of prosecution witnesses in attendance was to be completed on day to day basis. The trial court was also not taking recourse to various options in terms of Section 309 to regulate the proceedings and to ensure that trial was not dragged on unnecessarily.

( 4 ) CBI Special Prosecutor Mr. Y. ?. Saxena was summoned who appeared along with Mr. A. K. Dutt. Defence counsel M/s. R. ?. Naseem, K. K. Sareen and R. S. Suri also appeared on their own though accused were not impleaded as parties to this petition. Both sides were heard and their suggestions taken in regard to evolve a mutually acceptable methodology to redress petitioner s grievance and to ensure speedy trial of the case.

( 5 ) NEEDLESS to emphasise that speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and any avoidable delay caused in the trial amounts to infringement of that right. It is also generally experienced that such delay derails the trial in number of cases and reflects on the ultimate outcome. Witnesses loose the track and even parties become disinterested on the way as unending trial goes on without any prospect of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. This only breeds adverse consequences which, in turn, shakes public confidence in criminal justice system.

( 6 ) IT is not that courts are powerless or helpless in dealing with the situation or that there is any lack of statutory support in this regard. Section 309 provides various options to the court to meet such like situations. Therefore, even as the courts enjoy requisite power and also wherewithal to control and regulate the proceedings, yet the virus of delay goes on to eat the vitals of our justice delivery system. What is perhaps missing is the will and determination by all elements involved in administration of justice to catch the bull by the horn and to check the menace.

( 7 ) WE are conscious that court calendars are any justification for breach of statutory mandate or for delay in doing justice. No law permits grant of adjournments on the drop of hat, least of all the criminal Procedure Code. Section 309 of the Code lays down stringent conditions for this requiring a criminal court to record reasons even for granting an adjournment for special reasons. Therefore, adjournments are not to be granted in a routine manner but only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances and for special reasons. It is all the more desirable that these were declined in session s trials save otherwise in very special and extraordinary circumstances. The Sessions trials demand fast completion and quick disposal because of high stakes involved for both prosecution and the accused. Any undue delay in disposal of these either on account of a party s inaction or stratagem or because of courts over-indulgence or inertia generates adverse fall out ultimately reflecting on efficiency of justice system. Such t