JUDGMENT

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue appropriate directions to the Court of Additional Session Judge Barnala to decide the criminal appeal bearing No.CRA-102- 2022 titled as ' Kamaljeet Kaur v. Ramandeep Sharma ' in a time bound manner, as the respondent is trying to delay the matter on one pretext or the other.

2. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, a cheque bearing No.000009 dated 18.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was issued by the respondent to the petitioner in discharge of his liability. The said cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner filed a criminal complaint on 16.02.2019 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Barnala and vide its judgment and order dated 27.09.2022, the respondent was convicted for commission of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and the respondent was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the present petitioner. He further submits that the respondent filed an appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the Court of Sessions Judge Barnala on 20.10.2022. Learned counsel further submits that after filing of the appeal, the same was taken up by the appellate court on different dates and the lower court record was requisitioned. However, during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent adopted all the delaying tactics and every attempt was made to delay the disposal of the appeal, which is pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Barnala. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is making all endeavour to delay the matter, as she is a public servant and she is adopting the delaying tactics to ensure that the appeal is not decided during her service period. Thus, the delay in decision of the said appeal is causing great prejudice to the present petitioner, as he is to go abroad for the purpose of higher education and requires the amount involved in the present case for his educational needs and other related purposes.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Since the present petition has been filed with a limited prayer for issuance of directions to the 1st Appellate Court to decide the appeal in a time bound manner and any order passed by this Court in this regard is not likely to prejudice the respondent/accused in any manner, consequently this Court deems it appropriate not to issue notice to the respondent/accused at this stage, which would also save the precious time, energy and expenses of the respondent as well.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of speedy trial and emphasizing that the speedy trial is one of the most important facets of the fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21, held in the matter of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab and connect case, 1994(2) RCR 168 as follows:- .

Speedy Trial

89. The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a provision of Magna Carta. This principle has also been incorporated into the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 and from there into the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America which reads, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial......

90. It may be pointed out, in this connection, that there is a Federal Act of 1974 called 'Speedy Trial Act' establishing a set of time-limits for carrying out the major events, e.g., information, indictment, arraignment, in the prosecution of criminal cases. See Black's Law Dictionary, (Sixth Edition) p. 1400.

91. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of