speedy trial as a fundamental right as far an accused is
concerned, who has been implicated in a criminal case and
facing trial. But, the courts are not able to implement the
same in full letter and spirit of the Constitution because of the
over burden on each court due to pendency of large number of
cases which is beyond the capacity of the Judicial Officer to
dispose of. At the same time, it cannot be taken as a ground
for postponing the case of an accused who comes before the
court and seeks for the relief of speedy disposal which
according to him, is required for settlement in his life and to
procure employment. It is true that if a person is involved in a
crime, it is very difficult for him to get a better employment as
it is a stigma in his life. So, he is having every right to see
that the case is disposed of either way and if he get some
honourable acquittal, then, the stigma will go and he can
pursue for his better employment to settle down in life in
future. This is the grievance of the petitioner in this case as on
account of the pendency of the case, he is not been able to go
abroad and get better employment either in India or abroad.
The anguish of the petitioner cannot be said to be not genuine.
So, under the circumstances, this court feels that even though
this court is very well aware of the burden cast on the
presiding officers in disposing the cases, giving direction to the
court below to expedite the trial of the case within a time
frame will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936
OP(Crl.).No. 93 of 2014 (Q)
ANAND, Vs STATE OF KERALA,
Dated this, the 10th day of June, 2014.
This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the
accused in C.C.No.614/2012 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada for speedy disposal of the
case under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is arrayed
as accused in C.C.No.614/2012 pending before Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada which originated on the
basis of Crime No.180/2012 of Kattakada police station
registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto
complainant against seven accused persons including the
petitioner alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148,
149, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, final report was filed and the case is now
pending as C.C.No.614/2012 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada. On account of the
pendency of the case, he is not able to pursue his employment
in abroad and the pendency of the case is also affecting the
possibility of getting good employment as well. According to
O.P.(Criminal)No.93 of 2014 : 2 :
him, he has been falsely implicated in the case and unless the
case is disposed of at the earliest, he will be put to hardship.
So, he has no other remedy except to approach this court
seeking the following relief:
"To issue an appropriate direction or order,
directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kattakada to dispose of C.C.No.614/2012 within a time
frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court."
3. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the
petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at
the admission stage itself after hearing the Counsel for the
petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor and calling for
a report from the concerned court.
4. Accordingly, earlier a report has been called for and
the magistrate has sent a report dated 26.05.2014 which
reads as follows:
"Inviting kind attention to the references cited, I
humbly submit the following report for kind consideration.
This case arose on a final report submitted by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Kattakada Police Station, in crime
No.180/12 alleging offences punishable U/Ss.143, 147, 148,
149, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 354 of IPC against accused 7
in no.s Now the case posted for appearance of all accused on
3.6.14 and summons issued to them. There are 8 witnesses
O.P.(Criminal)No.93 of 2014 : 3 :
in this case and trial in this case is not yet started. Further
the service of Prosecutor is available in this court only on
Mondays and Thursdays in a week.
In these circumstances it is submitted that three
months time may please be granted to dispose the case."
5. Since the accused including the petitioner have not
appeared before the court, this court at that stage felt that
without procuring the presence of the accused giving direction
to the magistrate will be of no use and subsequently asked for
a further report and the learned magistrate sent a further
report dated 07.06.2014 which reads as follows:
"Summons were served to all the accused persons.
But none of them entered appearance on 3.6.14. In that
circumstance non-bailable warrant was issued on 3.6.14 and
the case adjourned to 13.6.14 for execution of warrant."
6. Again on 09.06.2014, the learned magistrate sent
an another report which reads as follows:
"Accused no.s 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in the above case
advanced the case on today in the afternoon session
(9.6.14) and entered appearance and moved bail application.
Accordingly bail granted to all except A-4. The case
adjourned to 13.6.14 for execution of warrant of A-4."
7. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor and considered the reports of the learned
magistrate.
8. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on
account of the pendency of this case, he is not able to go
abroad to get employment though employment opportunities
are coming to him and he will not get passport or visa due to
the pendency of the case. Further, even if he applies for
employment in India, the pendency of the case may be a
stigma for getting good employment as well. So, he wants an
early disposal of the case either way.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since
the appearance of the accused has not been procured so far,
there is no necessity to issue any direction to dispose of the
case at the earliest as claimed by the petitioner as even old
cases than this case are pending before this court for long
time.
10. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the
statement given by the de facto complainant, Crime
No.180/2012 of Kattakada Police Station was registered
against six named persons including the present petitioner and
two identifiable persons as Ext.P1 First Information Report
alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b),
341, 323, 324 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an
admitted fact that after investigation, Ext.P2 Final Report was
filed against seven accused persons including the present
petitioner showing the accused persons as absconding. Now, it
is seen from the report that after the final report is filed, it was
taken on file as C.C.No.614/2012 and pending before Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada and it is seen from the
earlier report that, even for sending summons to an accused, it
has taken two years, that may be due to the pendency of
number of cases before that court. It is also seen from the
subsequent reports that except accused No.4, others appeared
and they were released on bail on 09.06.2014 and warrant has
been issued against 4th accused and now it is posted to
13.06.2014 for return of warrant against 4th accused.
11. It is true that Constitution of India mandates
speedy trial as a fundamental right as far an accused is
concerned, who has been implicated in a criminal case and
facing trial. But, the courts are not able to implement the
same in full letter and spirit of the Constitution because of the
over burden on each court due to pendency of large number of
cases which is beyond the capacity of the Judicial Officer to
dispose of. At the same time, it cannot be taken as a ground
for postponing the case of an accused who comes before the
court and seeks for the relief of speedy disposal which
according to him, is required for settlement in his life and to
procure employment. It is true that if a person is involved in a
crime, it is very difficult for him to get a better employment as
it is a stigma in his life. So, he is having every right to see
that the case is disposed of either way and if he get some
honourable acquittal, then, the stigma will go and he can
pursue for his better employment to settle down in life in
future. This is the grievance of the petitioner in this case as on
account of the pendency of the case, he is not been able to go
abroad and get better employment either in India or abroad.
The anguish of the petitioner cannot be said to be not genuine.
So, under the circumstances, this court feels that even though
this court is very well aware of the burden cast on the
presiding officers in disposing the cases, giving direction to the
court below to expedite the trial of the case within a time
frame will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice.
So, the petition is disposed of as follows:
The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakada is
directed to take all earnest steps to procure the
presence of all the accused persons to proceed with
the trial of the case and dispose of the same within a
period of five months from the date of order and if it is
not possible within a reasonable time to procure the
presence of 4th accused, then, proceed with the case of
other accused persons and dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible within the above time.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the
concerned court immediately.
With the above direction and observation, the petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment