Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2934
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU
P. Manibalan Mala & Another
Versus
The State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station & Another
Crl.OP No.25537 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 12-07-2012
For the Petitioners:N. Thiagarajan, SC for K.B. Vivekanandan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 -S. Shanmuga Velayutham, Public Prosecutor assisted by M. Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2 - No Appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the gravity of the offence and the explanation offered by the prosecution.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Charge Sheet - Criminal Offences - Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992 - Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 332, 336, 307, 397 & 436 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the delay in filing the charge sheet and its impact on the accused's constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the principles of speedy trial established in Manaka Gandhi v. Union of India and Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. It also considered the gravity of the offence and the explanation offered by the prosecution, emphasizing the need for a speedy trial as a fundamental right.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where a bus conductor and driver were attacked, the bus was set on fire, and public property was damaged. The accused were charged with various criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. The main ground for quashing the proceedings was the delay of 12 years in filing the final report, which the petitioners argued violated their constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the charge sheet did not warrant quashing the proceedings, considering the gravity of the offence and the explanation offered by the prosecution. The court dismissed the petition and directed the case to be committed to the Court of Sessions with top priority for disposal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the charge sheet violated the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the charge sheet, while significant, did not warrant quashing the proceedings due to the gravity of the offence and the need for a speedy trial as a fundamental right. The court emphasized the principles of speedy trial established in previous judgments and directed the case to be committed to the Court of Sessions with top priority for disposal.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the case was directed to be committed to the Court of Sessions with top priority for disposal.
1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 12 in Crime No.377 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent police. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. Altogether there are 18 accused including the petitioners. The said case has been registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 332, 336, 307, 397 & 436 I.P.C., and Sections 3 & 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. Seeking to quash the said F.I.R, the petitioners have come up with this petition.
2. This petition was filed on 18.10.2011 and the same was admitted by this Court on 29.10.2011. Thereafter, the matter was listed on several hearings for filing counter by the respondents. Finally, counter was filed before this Court by the first respondent only on 20.06.2012. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that on completing investigation, final report was filed against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram on 18.06.2012 and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offenes under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 332, 336, 307, 397 & 436 I.P.C., and Sections 3 & 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992 by order dated 19.06.2012 in P.R.C.No.33 of 2012. Thus, according to the counter filed by the first respondent, this petition has become infructuous.
3. But, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that this petition has not become infructuous because this Court could examine the question as to whether the consequent proceedings in this case could be allowed to go on before the lower Court.
4. In view of the said submission made, this Court permitted the learned counsel on either side to advance their arguments.
5. The facts of the prosecution case would be as follows:-
The defacto complainant Mr.Arumugam, was a Conductor employed under the State Transport Corporation at Villupuram. On 01.06.2000, he was on duty in a Bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 0774. One Mr.Mohan was the Driver of the said Bus. The Bus was plying between Puducherry to Villupuram. On 01.06.2012 at about 8.30 p.m., the Bus started its journey from Puducherry. The Bus was fully packed with passengers. At about 9.00 p.m., the Bus was stopped at a place known as Thirubuvanai. Suddenly, 5 persons, of age group between 20 and 30 got into the Bus through the front entrance and similarly 5 other persons got into the Bus through the back entrance. The Bus again commenced its journey. The 5 persons who got into the Bus through front entrance, purchased tickets for them to go to Valavanam Village. Then the Conductor came to the back side of the Bus and wanted the other 5 persons to purchase tickets. They told the Conductor that the persons who got into the Bus through the front entrance would take tickets for them also. Therefore, the Conductor again went to the front side of the entrance. At that time, the Bus reached a place known as S.R.Palayam.
6. When the Bus was running, two persons who had already got into the Bus through the front entrance took out knives and brandished the same against the Driver. They directed the Driver to stop the Bus. Yet another person attacked the Driver on his left thigh with a stick. Therefore, the Driver stopped the Bus. All the 10 people came near the front and back entrances and blocked the same so as to prevent the passengers from getting down. Few more persons were found following the Bus in Motor Cycles. They also surrounded the Bus. All these miscreants had knife and stick in their hands. Some of them were holding plastic cans containing fuel. On seeing these things, fearing that some untoward incident would happen, the Conductor wanted the Driver to take off the Bus. But, one of the miscreants in the crowd shouted at the Driver and Conductor and directed the other miscreants to kill the Driver and Conductor and the passengers as directed by their Leader Mr.Thiru
