Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Ranjan Dwivedi v. C.B.I., Through the Director General
AIR 2012 SC 3217: 2012 (7) SCALE 382
JUDGES: C.K. Prasad and H.L. Dattu
Date of Decision: 17-08-2012
FACTS:-
The facts were that the accused-petitioners were tried for the assassination of Shri. L.N. Mishra (Former Union Railway Minister) in a bomb-blast at Railway station, Samastipur. The initial investigation was conducted by Bihar C.I.D. but later it was transferred to the C.B.I. who filed the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi due to the intervention of the State Government. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charges but the trial is still pending for the past 37 years. Meanwhile, the accused-petitioners filed a petition before the hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the infringement of right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ISSUE:-
Whether the accused-petitioners were entitled to the right of speedy trial as read under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or whether a trial can be terminated merely on the ground of delay?
JUDGMENT:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the concept of right to speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. This right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint of the accused by arrest and subsequent incarceration and it continues at all stages, namely, stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may arise from any impermissible delay from the time of commission of the crime till the final disposal of the trial, can be averted. This right to speedy trial is not only a safeguard to protect the accused from undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise the anxiety accompanying the accused and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest attached to it. No procedure which does not ensue a reasonable speedy trial can be considered as ‘reasonable, fair or just’ and it will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Courts have considered the right to speedy trial as one of the important facet of the fundamental right which has a creative connotation.
The Court further observed that this cherished right can be identified by certain factors, i.e., (i) length of delay, (ii) the justification for the delay, (iii) the accused’s assertion of his right to speedy trial, and (iv) prejudice caused to the accused by such delay. But the court stated that- ‘Unintentional and unavoidable delays or administrative factors over which prosecution has no control, such as, over-crowded court dockets, absence of the presiding officers, strike by the lawyers, delay by the superior forum in notifying the designated Judge, (in the present case only), the matter pending before the other forums, including High Courts and Supreme Courts and adjournment of the criminal trial at the instance of the accused, may be a good cause for the failure to complete the trail within a reasonable time’. Such delays cannot be considered as an infringement of right to speedy trial of the accused and these delays need to be excluded while ascertaining the cause of unreasonable delay.
HELD:-
The Court dismissed the petition with a direction to the Ld. Trial Judge to take the case on a daily basis and conclude the proceeding as early as possible without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments. The Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on ground of delay.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
