JUDGMENT

The accused in C.C.No.197/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the said court for the disposal of the above case, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. As per the judgment rendered in Allahabad High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 (6) SCC 267], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the constitutional courts from prescribing time limits for the disposal of the cases pending before the courts below, unless there are compelling reasons to adopt such a course.

4. Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Association (supra), are extracted hereunder:-

“32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time - bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out - of - turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

33. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out - of - turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day - to - day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

5. As far as the present case is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is that his probation in the post, which he holds in Government service, is not declared due to the pendency of this case. It is further stated that his promotion prospects are jeopardised due to the pendency of the case. It is for the said reason that the petitioner seeks speedy disposal of the case. Apparently, the case has been pending before the court below for the past 9 years. Being a case coming under the category of ‘five-plus-year old cases’, the Trial Court is bound to give priority for the disposal of the case. Taking into account the above aspect as well as the fact that the case would come under the prioritised category of ‘five-plus-year old cases’, I am of the view that the court below is expected to make every endeavor to dispose of the case as early as possible.

In the result, this original petition stands allowed as follows:-

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, is directed to dispose of C.C.No.197/2017 on the files of the said court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.