The right to a speedy trial is integral to the right to free and fair trial under Article 21, impacted by delays and the non-availability of documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT

Raj Beer Singh, J.

Heard Sri S.G. Husnain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sarita Gupta, Sri Ajay Kumar Kashyap, Sri Shivam Yadav and Sri Syed Mohd. Faisal, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of order dated 27.07.2023 and 10.08.2023, as well as for quashing of entire proceedings of case crime no.391 of 2000, (Sessions Case No. 187 of 2023) "State v. Randeep Singh Surjewala", pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Court No.1/Special Judge M.P./M.L.A. Court, Varanasi.

3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report of this case was lodged in the year 2000 but the case was committed to the court of sessions in the year 2022 and thus, there has been long and undue delay in trial without there being any fault on the part of the applicant. Further, the refusal of prosecution to supply requisite crucial and pertinent documents impinges upon the applicant's right to free and fair trial. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that 22 years delay in trial coupled with admission of prosecution regarding non-availability of original records, amounts to violation of applicant's right and remedies under law. The law does not envisage the situation, where a person accused of an offence, has to argue on charge in a 22 years old case, without aid of crucial and pertinent documents. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that compelling the applicant to face trial in 22 years old case without allowing him to seek recourse to all other legal remedies available under law, violates right to free and fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a 22 year old trial, the legal recourse by an accused is heavily dependent on documentary evidence, which in this case, has been either purposely or inadvertently not made part of the investigation or charge-sheet. If crucial and pertinent documents are non-existent in a criminal trial, the same clearly strikes at the root of trial and would render further proceedings to be against the interest of justice and equity. It was submitted that in compliance of order dated 12.03.2023, passed by this Court, the trial court in its order dated 27.07.2023 has observed that no original document is available at the concerned police station and thus, the trial court is proceeding with trial on the basis of certified copies, which were prepared in the absence of original documents. As the prosecution has been started by complainant, the authenticity of the records provided to the applicant is doubtful. Further, the documents available are not clearly legible and it is not clear that on what basis the trial court, without verifying from the original record, has provided the typed copies of documents.

4. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that 22 years have already elapsed since the al