Honble TIBREWAL, J. - This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioners who are facing trial in Criminal Case No. 573/83 (State v. Dwarka Prasad and another) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem ka Thana, under sections 323, 324, 325, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is based on inordinate delay in the trial and consequently, to be violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2). The incident is alleged to have taken place on 7.6.81 and crime No. 40/81 was registered at Police Station, Khandela under sections 147 and 323 I.P.C. at the initial stage. Charge-sheet was submitted on 23.11.91 under various offences including under section 307 I.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not find a prima facie case under section 307 I.P.C. and remanded the case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and now it is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemka Thana for trial.

(3). Charges under sections 148, 324, 325/149 and 323/149 were framed against Madan Lal, accused while against rest of the accused charges were framed under sections 147, 325/149, 324/149 and 323 I.P.C.

(4). It is contended by the learned counsel that more than 13 years have passed since the occurrence and more than 11-1/2 years have passed since the framing of the charges, but still not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel contends that justice delayed is justice denied and it is a fundamental right of the accused to have a speedy trial. A delayed trial without any fault on the part of the accused is unreasonable and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel placed reliance on a number of judgments of the Apex Court right from Maneka Gandhis case to A.R. Antuleys case. He also placed reliance on the decision in Chhote Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan (1), delivered by me on the question, as to when the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground of delay. After considering the various judgments of the Apex Court as well as of other High Courts and this Court, the proposition of law laid down in the above case is as under :

(i) A speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India is no more in dispute. But, the question whether this fundamental right has been violated or is likely to be violated on account of the delay in the trial will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no outer limit can be fixed in a general way for all the cases;

(ii) While considering the length of delay, the Court will take into account the period consumed in the investigation of the case and the delay caused in actual proceedings in Court after filing of the chargesheet. A speedy investigation and a trial are equally mandated both by the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

(iii) While deciding such question, the Court shall take into account the working of the judicial system in India and the lack of satisfactory working conditions in judicial courts, including large pendency and institution of the cases, inadequacy of Judge strength and under-staffing etc.

(iv) In a pending case to decide the question whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed or any other appropriate direction be given to the trial court to secure the ends of justice will depend on seriousness of the offence, whether the delay was occasioned by the tactic or conduct of the accused himself, whether the accused objected at any stage when such delay occasioned and whether the accused is prejudiced in his defence on account of the delay?

(v) If the delay has caused prejudice to the accused in the conduct and his defence, the pending criminal proceedings should be normally quashed as in that situation it could be said that the accused has been denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and the trial is not fair and rea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document