The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, mandating that serious offenses be tried by competent courts capable of imposing appropriate sentences.

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1.

This appeal by special leave directed against

the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the High

Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCRC

No.1730/2019, owing to various circumstances

including the inordinate delay occasioned in the

matter of trial, now, poses a legal conundrum. The

Criminal Appeal No.2625 of 2023

Page 1 of 43

Digitally signed by

Vijay Kumar

Date: 2023.11.29

14:02:57 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

appellant is facing trial before the Court of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in criminal case

arising from FIR No.22/2015 of Police Station, New

Rajendra Nagar, Raipur in the State of

Chhattisgarh, registered under Sections 420 ,

409/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred for short ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 3

and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the

Banning Act’) and Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. In terms of Section 29 (1)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

‘Cr.PC’) the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Raipur where the case is now pending can only

impose, in case found him guilty, a maximum

corporeal punishment of a term up to 7 years even

if it is of the view that the appellant deserves more

severe punishment. We may hasten to clarify here

Criminal Appeal No.2625 of 2023

Page 2 of 43

that we shall not be understood to have expressed

an opinion that the appellant deserves to be

convicted and handed down such a sentence.

Even the question whether he should be convicted

or acquitted is a matter of evidence and to be

decided by the trial Court, on appreciation of

evidence, at the appropriate stage of trial. But

then, by now the appellant had already undergone

incarceration for a term of more than eight years.

We do not think it just or appropriate to treat this

situation as a mere happenstance and leave it

there for the appellant to get resolved or remedied

later. Taking note of the scope of the SLP this

Court, normally, would be loath to permit the

parties to submit beyond the question whether to

grant or not to grant bail, but the very peculiar

circumstances involved and also evolved tends us

to think that disinclination to go into the legal

Criminal Appeal No.2625 of 2023

Page 3 of 43

conundrum emerging in this case may result in

great miscarriage of justice in all probabilities. It is

also to be noted that both sides submit and pray

that appropriate orders be passed to ensure a fair

trial by a court of competent jurisdiction. In such

circumstances, the parties were heard in extenso.

2.

We have heard Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,

learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sourbh Roy,

learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.

Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondent

State.

3.

We have already noted that the appellant

herein has been charged for commission of various

offences under the IPC including indictment under

Section 409 , IPC punishable with imprisonment for

life or imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to 10 years and fine and

under the stated provisions of the two enactments

Criminal Appeal No.2625 of 2023

Page 4 of 43

mentioned hereinbefore. Essentially, taking into

account the fact that the appellant had already

undergone incarceration for more than 8 years as

per order dated 02.08.2023, this Court called for

an affidavit from the respondent-State as to the

steps taken to apprehend the other absconding

accused and also