The main legal point established was the court's power to intervene and issue directions to expedite a criminal trial that had been unduly delayed, ensuring the right to a speedy trial.

1. Notices issued have been received back duly served. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A., has put in appearance on behalf of the Secretary, Home and the Deputy Director, Public Prosecution. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P., has put in appearance on behalf of the Secretary, Law. Notices were sent to all the accused. Accused persons 2 to 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 have been served. Accused persons 9, 10, 11 and 22 could not be served and it is stated that accused persons 15, 17, 18 and 21 have expired. So, notices could not be served upon them. In view of the orders which I propose to pass, it is not necessary to ensure the attendance of the un-served accused persons.

      2. This petition has been registered suo-motu by this Court in exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The facts leading to the registration of this petition are as follows:-

As Chief Justice, on the administrative side, this Court was monitoring the pendency of old cases in the State of Tripura. There are a large number of old cases which are more than 5 years old pending in the State of Tripura. A large number of these cases related to those matters where the accused had been declared absconders and the cases had been adjourned sine-die.

4. On 14.06.2015 the Judicial Officers stationed at Agartala were asked to meet the Chief Justice along with the details of the 10 (ten) oldest cases pending with them. During this discussion, an extremely shocking case came to the notice of the Chief Justice. A sitting member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly Sri Parimal Saha was murdered on 07.4.1983. The investigation went on and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions in March, 2006. There were as many as 24 accused. A few of them have expired by now.

5. It is not necessary to give all facts but suffice to state that somewhere by the end of 1988, the statements of all the prosecution witnesses had been recorded except for the statement of the Investigating Officer Mr. R.N. Chakraborty. However, the State then moved an application to declare Sri D. Gautam, one of the witnesses for the prosecution who was a Police Officer as hostile. This application was allowed and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine Mr. D. Gautam. This order was passed on 19.11.1988. Almost 26 years have elapsed and neither the cross-examination of Sri D. Gautam has taken place nor the Investigating Officer has been examined. In fact, Sri R.N. Chakraborty, the Investigating Officer, expired during the pendency of the trial and thereafter, the State moved an application that his son Sri Bhaskar Chakraborty be examined only for purposes of identifying the handwriting of Sri R.N. Chakraborty. What is most depressing is that neither the Presiding Officers of the Courts nor the Special Public Prosecutors nor the State ever took interest in ensuring that these two witnesses are examined.

6. One expects a sessions trial to be completed within three to six months of the charge being framed and here is a matter which is a “sensational case” as described by many Presiding Officers but two witnesses have not been examined for 26 years. For two decades the case was adjourned for one reason or the other. It appears that none was interested in handling or disposing of the case.

7. On 27.10.2009, the matter was listed before the Addl. Sessions Judge and I must say that he was one of few Presiding Officers who understood the gravity of the case and also clearly understood how the matter had clearly been delayed for such a long length of time. He passed a detailed order on 27.10.2009 which reads as follows:-

“The Ld. Spl. P.P. Mr. Mihir Nandi is physically present for the prosecution. Miss. Rumela Guha, Ld. Advocate filed vokalatnama for all the charge-sheeted accused persons. 20 accused persons are also physically present in the court today.

This is a case the original trial of