Sr. No. 15

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 3711/2019

Rajesh Singh and others

…. Petitioner (s)

Through:-

Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate

with Ms. Shreya Nagpal,

Advocate

V/s

…..Respondent(s)

State of J&K and others

Through:-

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assisting

Counsel to Mr. Raman Sharma,

AAG for R-1

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Advocate

for R-2

CORAM : HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

Petitioners in this petition seek a direction to the respondents to

conclude the trial, arising out of the Challan No. 01/Ch dated 25.08.2011

pending before the court of learned Special Judge Anti-corruption (CBI

Cases) Jammu within two months.

2.

The

respondent

No.

2

registered

FIR

being

FIR

No.

RC0042010A003 on 12.05.2010 for the allegation that the Contractor M/s

Larsen and Toubro Limited, who had been awarded the contract for rural

electrification work under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidytikaran Yojna for

Udhampur, by NHPC had used sub-standard material from unapproved

vendors and, as such, had caused loss to the state exchequer.

2

WP(C) No. 3711/2019

3.

The charge sheet was filed by the respondents against the petitioners

and other accused persons on 25.08.2011 under Section 120-B read with

420, 420-A R.P.C and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of J&K

Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and the trial court framed charges on

03.12.2012, thereafter, the trial commenced.

4.

It is submitted that M/s Dee Control and Electric Pvt. Ltd who was

also appointed as a sub-contractor had filed a petition bearing CRMC No.

505/2015 in this Court against the framing of charges and this Court vide

order dated 03.12.2012, called the record of the trial court. The record was

sent back vide order dated 28.08.2018 and trial commenced.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there are as many as

34 witnesses which have been cited and till date, only 13 witnesses have

been examined, one has expired and one witness has been dropped by the

prosecution from the array of witnesses. The trial is pending for more than

11 years and as many as 19 witnesses are yet to be examined.

6.

The only grievance of the petitioners who submit that they are ready

to face the trial is that the same is not being conducted expeditiously.

Though initially, the trial could not proceed on account of the petition filed

by M/s Dee Control and Electric Pvt. Ltd from 04.12.2015 to 29.09.2018 in

which the trial Court records were summoned but the records were sent

back to the trial Court only in 2018, but till date, the trial has not proceeded

without any delay.

7.

The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and it is an essential part of right to life and liberty

as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The right to speedy trial has

3

WP(C) No. 3711/2019

been envisaged under Article 21 at all stages of investigation such as

inquiry, trial and revision so that any possible prejudice may not be caused

to the parties from an impermissible and avoidable delay. The right to

speedy trial has been recognized under Article 21 as an integral and

essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. This right has

been undisputedly held as a right of the accused as well as victim by

Hon9ble the Supreme Court in catena of judgments.

8.

In 8Hussainara Khatoon (I) V. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,

1980 (1) SCC 81 while dealing with Article 21 of the constitution of India,

the Hon9ble Apex Court has observed that :

“No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial

can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall

foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that

speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably

expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the

f