A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C. No. 70 of 2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Trial of the case had commenced on 22.06.2016. From 06.09.2016 onwards, trial was adjourned for the reason that presence of the witnesses 3 to 5 were not procured for tendering evidence, in spite of issuing show cause notice to the 4th respondent (Station House Officer, Central Police Station, Kochi). Deliberate dereliction of duty on the part of the 4th respondent in not executing the bailable warrant issued to CW-3 and summons to CW's 4 and 5 amounted to manifestation of clear disrespect to the directions of the court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Direct the respondents 2 to 4 to produce CW-3 to 5 in C.C. No. 70/2012 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam on 05.10.2017.

2. To direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam to dispose of C.C. No. 70/2012 at the earliest.

3. Grant such other relief's, which this Honourable Court may deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Suman Chakravarthy.

3. At the outset, I may mention that the grievance of the petitioner no longer subsists now as the witnesses have been examined on account of the interim orders passed by this Court in this proceedings. However, the serious issues revealed through this case remain to be addressed. It is important to notice that such contumacious acts are generally done when a Police officer himself figures in as an accused or a defaulting witness. Needless to observe that lethargy on the part of the Police in procuring the presence of such accused persons and witnesses is an often repeated saga. Unless that is properly dealt with, the criminal justice administration system will come to a grinding halt. I shall examine the ramification and gravity of the problem posed before this Court.

4. I shall start with referring to Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362, wherein almost all the relevant decisions on the point have been considered by the apex court. Question raised before the court was regarding the delay in grant of bail. The Bench has referred to Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, AIR 1992 SC 1701, wherein it has been held that speedy trial at all stages is a part of right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed time. Apex court noticed in Noor Mohammed vs. Jethanand and Another, AIR 2013 SC 1217 that timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice.

5. Before that in Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2012 SC 642, it was observed that long delay has the effect of blatant violation of rule of law and it has an adverse impact on access to justice, which is a fundamental right. A Constitution Bench in Anita Kushwaha and Others vs. Pushap Sudan and Others, AIR 2016 SC 3506 had reiterated the above principles.

6. After referring to various decisions, the principles stated in Hussain's case (supra) is as follows:

“27. To sum up:

(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that:-

(a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week.

(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.

(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year.

(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consiste