The judgment establishes the right to speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and emphasizes the need for a balancing test to determine if this right has been denied, considering the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner through instant petition is seeking quashing of order dated 12.10.2018 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa though has set aside conviction under Section 338 of IPC, yet upheld the conviction of 3 months awarded under Section 279 and 337 by learned JMIC, Ellenabad vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2017.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition and which are emanating from the record are that the applicantpetitioner Gulzar Singh is bus driver and on 06.07.2013 he was on duty and driving a bus bearing Registration No.HR-57-4526. The petitioner lost control over the bus and it slipped into fields and hit a tree. As a result of accident, passengers got injured and Paramjit Kaur was one of them. She made a statement to the police that driver was driving the bus at a high speed and despite repeated warning from the passengers he did not slow down which resulted into accident. On the basis of statement of complainant, an FIR was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The police after completing investigation filed its final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The matter came up for consideration before learned JMIC, Ellenabad who vide order dated 10.03.2017 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 month. Assailing the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant-petitioner preferred an appeal which was partly allowed to the extent that judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 338 IPC was set aside whereas judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was maintained, vide judgment dated 12.10.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

3. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to primarily press on merits, however, prays that period of sentence may be reduced from sentenced awarded to sentence undergone. The petitioner is sole earning member of the family and having two minor children and all the family members are solely dependent upon him. The petitioner is neither previous convict nor offender and he has never misused the concession of bail. The fine imposed by the learned Trial Court has already been paid. The petitioner is facing agony of trial Since 2013.

4. Learned State counsel submitted custody certificate dated 28.11.2022 disclosing that petitioner has suffered incarceration of 22 days and no other case was ever registered against the petitioner. He does not dispute the fact that petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial and he is not involved in any offence.

5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record.

6. A Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognising the right of speedy trial as part of fundamental right of life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 has expounded following principles and held:

86. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. These propositions are:

(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in th