Court sets aside cost order due to trial delay, finding fault on all sides.

The court set aside the order imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for a 19-year trial delay. The delay was not solely the petitioner's fault, with both parties and the Presiding Officer contributing. Granting the cost would be unfair to the petitioner, and any warranted cost should be directed to legal authorities. The petitioner was directed to produce its witness for proving the sanction without causing further delay.

---

---

Issues involved: Petition under Section 482 seeking setting aside of cost imposed on petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for delay in trial.

Judgment Details:

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner as a condition for allowing its application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine the competent authority who had granted sanction for prosecution of the accused persons. The State was impleaded as a party respondent upon oral request, and notice of the petition was accepted by the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

The impugned order imposed the cost on the petitioner for a delay of 19 years in the trial, but it was observed that the delay was not solely attributable to the petitioner, with both parties being responsible. The Court noted that even the Presiding Officer's absence on some dates contributed to the trial delay. It was opined that allowing the cost to stand would be granting a premium to the accused persons for their crime, which they are not entitled to, especially when the delay was not solely the petitioner's fault. The Court suggested that any cost, if warranted, should have been directed to be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority or Advocates' Welfare Fund.

The trial court's decision to grant permission under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to examine the competent authority for proving the sanction for prosecution should not have resulted in the cost being imposed on the petitioner Department prosecuting the respondents under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the impugned order imposing cost on the petitioner was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to produce its witness for proving the sanction without causing further delay in the case's decision.

---