Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.
AIR 2007 SC 56
JUDGES: S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Decision: 29-09-2006
FACTS:-
The appellant was working as a Manager in the State Bank of India, Jammu & Kashmir. An FIR was registered against him under Section 5(2) of Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, pursuant to which he was arrested on the allegation that he had received a sum of Rs. 700/- as illegal gratification, though the amount was not recovered from him. Thereafter, without challenging the earlier orders of the courts and without any prior sanction from the competent authority, three challans have been produced by the respondents on same set of facts at different period of time but no witness has been examined since last 26 years of litigation. This has been considered a gross violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India resulting into filing of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:-
Whether Right to Speedy Trial can be read under Article 21 of the Constitution as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty?
JUDGMENT:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the right to speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent the accused from unnecessary incarceration, to minimise the anxiety attached with the accusation and to restricting the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there involves a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. This right has come into operation in the recent past and since the courts have delivered various judgments opening the dimensions of this fundamental right. In fact, the Courts have quashed certain proceedings on the ground of unnecessary delay.
This concept of speedy trial can be read under Article 21 constituting an essential part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed and preserved under the Constitution of India. The Court further observed that- ‘The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted’.
The Courts, in the number of cases, have reiterated that the right to speedy trial is one of the important facets of Article 21 of the Constitution and the law must adopt a ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure regarding the same. It is the duty of the court to avoid unnecessary delay. In order to achieve this goal and in order to make the administration of criminal justice system effective, it is the duty of the Union of India, the State Governments and various authorities to take necessary steps so that the important constitutional right of speedy trial of the accused does not remain only on the papers and a mere formality.
HELD:-
The Court allowed the appeal and disposed it accordingly as not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution since last 26 years of litigation which is a sheer violation of the right to speedy trial of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution as the purpose of this fundamental right is to avoid oppression and prevent further delay.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
