Right to Speedy Trial Prevails Over Belated Bid to Add Witness Under S.254(1) CrPC: Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court's Discretion - 2025-09-19

Delhi High Court Backs Trial Court in Rejecting Medha Patkar's Plea to Add Witness in 25-Year-Old Defamation Case

New Delhi: Upholding the principle of a speedy trial, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by activist Medha Patkar challenging a trial court's refusal to allow an additional witness in a defamation case against V.K. Saxena, which has been pending since 2000. Justice Shalinder Kaur affirmed that the right to produce evidence cannot be used to indefinitely prolong a trial, especially when a party has been given ample opportunities.

The court found no legal infirmity in the trial court's decision, emphasizing that judicial discretion was exercised judiciously to prevent further delays in a case that has spanned nearly a quarter of a century.

---

Background of the Decades-Old Dispute

The case originates from a criminal complaint filed by Medha Patkar on December 15, 2000, alleging defamation over an advertisement published in a national newspaper. While the case against the newspaper's publisher and editor was settled and closed in 2008, the trial against V.K. Saxena continued. A notice for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC was framed against him on August 2, 2011.

After over a decade of evidence recording, which saw the examination of four witnesses for the prosecution, Patkar's counsel sought to introduce a new witness in early 2025. On February 18, 2025, an application under Section 254(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was filed for this purpose. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Saket Courts dismissed this application on March 18, 2025, leading to the current petition in the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Petitioner's Stance (Medha Patkar):

Represented by Mr. Abhimanue Shreshta, the petitioner argued that the trial court had fundamentally misunderstood the law.

- It was contended that Section 254(1) of the CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to "take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution."

- Since the proposed witness was to appear voluntarily without the court's summons, the application fell squarely under Section 254(1), not Section 254(2) (which deals with summoning witnesses).

- The plea was made before the prosecution's evidence was formally closed and was not belated or intended to fill gaps in the case.

- The petitioner also pointed out that the long pendency of the case was due to multiple factors, including actions by the respondent, and not solely her fault.

Respondent's Stance (V.K. Saxena):

Mr. Gajinder Kumar, counsel for the respondent, strongly opposed the petition, highlighting the inordinate delay.

- He argued that the attempt to introduce a new, unlisted witness after 25 years was an "afterthought" designed to delay the proceedings and fill lacunae in the prosecution's case.

- He pointed out that the petitioner had previously been allowed to summon a witness in 2024 but had not mentioned the currently proposed witness at that time.

- Accepting the petitioner's interpretation of Section 254(1) would render Section 254(2) redundant and allow for endless trials.

- The respondent's counsel emphasized that the trial court's order was a justified exercise of discretion to curb abuse of the legal process.

High Court's Analysis: Balancing Rights with Speedy Justice

Justice Shalinder Kaur, after reviewing the arguments and trial court records, sided with the reasoning of the lower court. The High Court's judgment is anchored in the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21.

"A trial cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The criminal justice system is already burdened with an overwhelming pendency of cases. Prolonging trials unnecessarily defeats the very objective of fair and expeditious justice," the Court observed, referencing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others vs. R. S. Nayak .

The Court noted that while the petitioner has the right to produce evidence under Section 254(1), this right is not absolute and must be exercised diligently. The judgment highlighted several instances where the trial court had granted the petitioner ample and even "last and final" opportunities to conclude her evidence from 2023 onwards.

The High Court found the petitioner’s application to be cryptic, lacking sufficient cause for the delayed introduction of the witness.

"The said application does not provide any reason for not producing the said witness at an earlier stage, as well as the relevance of the witness to be examined at such a belated stage," the order stated.

The Final Verdict

Concluding that the trial court's order was neither perverse nor legally flawed, the High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the JMFC had correctly interpreted the scope of Section 254 and was justified in rejecting the application to prevent further protraction of the trial. The decision underscores that while procedural rights are vital, they cannot be invoked in a manner that subverts the overarching goal of timely justice.