IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Ved Prakash Vaish, JJ.
Smt. Neetu N. Marak – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 401 of 2016
Decided On : 04-10-2017
Speedy Trial - Criminal Procedure - IPC 120(B)/365/511 - District Council Courts - Subordinate District Council Courts
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case, filed a writ petition seeking a speedy trial as the trial had not commenced despite the filing of the charge sheet and her appearance before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial of the case had been delayed due to the mishandling of records by the judicial magistrate and the government advocate, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Issues: Delay in trial commencement despite charge sheet filing and petitioner's appearance, mishandling of records by judicial magistrate and government advocate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the responsibility of the judicial magistrate and prosecuting agency to ensure expeditious trial proceedings.
Final Decision: The court directed the government advocate to return the case records to the judicial magistrate and instructed the magistrate to proceed with the trial expeditiously, ensuring minimal adjournments and reporting progress to the court.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
This writ petition is de-linked from WP (C) No. 213 of 2014 and is taken up for disposal by this separate order.
2. The petitioner, who is an accused in Tura G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 for offences under Sections No. 120 (B)/365/511 IPC, has preferred this petition essentially with the grievance that even after filing of charge-sheet No. 18 of 2014 dated 30.06.2014; and herself having appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Tura on 13.02.2015, the trial of the case has not been taken up and even the charges have not been framed, denying her the right of speedy trial. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in this petition:
Call for the records of the case and on perusal of records and on hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute;
And be further pleased to pass such other Order/Orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper."
3. In this petition, the learned Government Advocate was granted time to complete his instructions on 15.12.2016 and again, on 31.01.2017. Thereafter, this petition was ordered to be listed along with WP(C) No. 213 of 2014, which relates to the alleged custodial death of the co-accused in G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014. However, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to keep this petition pending because, irrespective of the questions involved in the other petition, trial of the criminal case against the petitioner has to proceed and, for that matter, the limited prayer made in this petition deserves to be granted.
4. On being queried in relation to the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner in the present case, the learned Government Advocate could not deny the right of the petitioner for a speedy trial. However, from the other submissions made, it appears that the papers related with G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 were forwarded to the office of the Government Advocate by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Tura with reference to the said other petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 213 of 2014.
5. We find it difficult to appreciate the manner of dealing with the matter by the officers concerned. The charge sheet against the petitioner was filed way back on 30.06.2014 and it was required of the prosecuting agency as also the learned Judicial Magistrate to ensure that the trial of the case proceeded expeditiously. However, it appears that with inexplicable sending of the record by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the learned Government Advocate, the trial of the case came to a halt. It is required to be imbibed by all the concerned that speedy trial is that of a fundamental right; and is required to be ensured by the Court as also by the prosecuting agency. It would be nothing but travesty of justice if necessary steps are not taken by the learned Presiding Officers as also by the Prosecutors to ensure proper progress of the trial of the criminal cases. Moreover, the unique Courts established by law in the State i.e., District Council Courts and the Subordinate District Council Courts are entrusted with the jurisdiction in relation to the matters involving the Scheduled Tribes; and the concerned Presiding Officers are required to keep in view the objectives for establishment of such Courts and ought to take all steps for advancing the cause of justice.
6. In the present case, w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.