TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding deserved to be quashed on the ground that inordinate and unexplained delay had infringed the accused's fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The Court held that the right to speedy justice is an integral part of Article 21 and that prolonged delay in criminal proceedings may justify quashing where continuation would be unjust and oppressive. It noted that the alleged irregularities were old, the FIR had been lodged in 1992, the chargesheet was filed in 1994, and the matter had thereafter remained pending for years without meaningful progress. The Court also took into account that the delay was not attributable solely to the prosecution, but observed that the combined effect of systemic delay, repeated adjournments, and the long passage of time had made effective trial unlikely. In these circumstances, further continuation of the proceeding was found to serve no rational purpose.
Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was held liable to be quashed for violation of the right to speedy trial and the application was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where inordinate delay, assessed on the facts of the case, renders continued criminal prosecution oppressive and inconsistent with fair procedure, the proceeding may be quashed as an infringement of Article 21.
TaxTMI 
