Court emphasizes the importance of a fair and speedy trial, invoking Article 21 and mitigating circumstances in sentencing for minor offenses.

ORDER

Prelude:

“This dedicated bench is for implementing the pilot project to identify and dispose of criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years pending at trial, appeal or revision stage for more than 3 years in the State of Tamil Nadu with reference to the Districts coming under the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court”.

2. This Dedicated Bench has taken all S.T.C.No.3918 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam as Suo motu Special Tr.Case. (MD) No.19160 of 2025 in Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.).(MD).No.1014 of 2025, upon proper scrutinity and suitability as a fit case warranting the exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash the said S.T.C., pending more then six years without any precedent value in this pilot project.

3.1 Brief facts of the prosecution case in S.T.C.No.3918 of 2019 On 23.12.2008, at about 6:30 p.m., the accused/respondents are said to have stolen the money purse containing a sum of Rs. 120/- belonging to the defacto complainant. Therefore, a case was registered in Crime No.837 of 2008 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and on investigation, final report filed and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.3918 of 2019 and the same was pending without trial for more than six years.

4.Discussion:

4.1.Today, the learned Judicial Magistrate has appeared through video conference. the accused and the police official were present before the leanred Judicial Magistrate Court. The accused has filed admission petition and pleaded guilty and seek to give leniency in imposing punishment.

4.2.This Court satisfies the admission petition filed without any coercion or threat and this Court also explains the contents of the accusation to the accused and he admit the contends of the admission petition and pleaded guilty.

4.3.In view of the above admission and pleading of guilty and considering the material allegation made in the final report did not relate to the economic and heinous offence and their conduct is good and the charged offence is punishable with imprisonment of three years or fine and the case is pending for more than three years without trial and the same offend the violation Article 21 of the fair and speedy trial, this Court is inclined to admit the petition and convict the accused under Section 379 of IPC

5.Discussion:

5.1.Today, the accused and the police official were present before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate has framed the necessary charges and explained to the accused and the accused has filed admission petition and pleaded guilty and seek to give leniency in imposing punishment.

5.2.This Court satisfies the admission petition filed without any coercion or threat and this Court also explains the contents of the accusation to the accused and he admit the contends of the admission petition and pleaded guilty.

5.3.In view of the above admission and pleading of guilty and considering the material allegation made in the final report did not relate to the economic and heinous offence and their conduct is good and the charged offence is punishable with imprisonment of three years or fine and the case is pending for more than six years without trial and the same impinge the fair and speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to admit the petition and convict the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC 6. Discussion on the question of punishment :-

The accused persons are aged about 37, 38, and 39 years respectively, and being women, they are engaged in coolie (daily wage) work. It is also noted that they have not been involved in any further offence. Further they are confined in Central prison, Madurai, for a period of 27 days. Considering the mitigating circumstances, and following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 SCC Online SC 984, 2025 INSC 1014 (K.Ponnammal Vs. State) an