2019 (9) TMI 1739 - HC - Indian Laws

21-year delay in trial proceedings violates right to speedy trial under Article 21, charge sheet quashed

N.P. Immanuel Versus State rep by The Inspector of Police, M. Vatsala

Madras HC quashed a charge sheet after finding that a 21-year delay in trial proceedings violated the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21. ... Seeking quashing of impugned Charge Sheet - Whether the prolonged delay in the trial proceedings constituted a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby warranting the quashing of the charge sheet? - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is pending for trial from the year 2003. The second respondent after a period of 3 years from the date of final report, filed a petition for further investigation. It was ordered after a period of 5 years from the date of filing. It was ordered by the Trial Court for further investigation after a period of 8 years from the date of further investigation. Therefore, it causes 21 years delay in the process of trial. As the judgment held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that no general guideline can be fixed by the Court and that each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. It is the bounden duty of the Court and the prosecution to prevent unreasonable delay. The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. The prosecution failure to initiate the trial proceedings for the past 21 years without there being any lapse on behalf of the petitioner herein. Thus, permitting the State to continue with the prosecution and trial any further would be total abuse of process of law. So far, the petitioner had undergone the ordeal trial for the past 21 years, the pendency of the trial would not serve any purpose and as such it is liable to be quashed. Conclusion - The delay of 21 years in the trial proceedings was unreasonable and constituted a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The impugned Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 360 of 2003 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered by the Court was whether the prolonged delay in the trial proceedings constituted a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby warranting the quashing of the charge sheet in C.C. No. 360 of 2003.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS- Relevant legal framework and precedents:The Court referred to the constitutional right to a speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty. The Court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which emphasized that a prolonged delay in trial proceedings could violate Article 21. The Court also referenced the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21, and each case must be decided on its own facts without a fixed outer time limit for conclusion.- Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court interpreted the right to a speedy trial as requiring reasonable expedition in the conduct of criminal proceedings. It noted that the delay of 21 years in the trial proceedings was excessive and unjustifiable, particularly given the lack of evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any fault on his part. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to initiate trial proceedings in a timely manner constituted an abuse of the legal process.- Key evidence and findings:The Court found that there was no material evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court also noted the absence of witness testimony to support the allegations made by the prosecution.- Application of law to facts:The Court applied the principles of a speedy trial to the facts of the case, concluding that the 21-year delay in the trial proceedings was unreasonable and oppressive. The Court determined that the delay was primarily caused by the prosecution and the complainant, with no fault attributable to the petitioner.- Treatment of competing arguments:The petitioner argued for the quashing of the charge sheet due to the inordinate delay and lack of evidence. The prosecution contended that the trial was pending due to procedural issues and the need for further investigation. However, the Court found the petitioner's arguments more compelling, given the lack of progress in the trial and the absence of substantial evidence.- Conclusions:The Court concluded that the prolonged delay in the trial proceedings violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the charge sheet against the petitioner.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:'The speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the instant case, in the last twenty-six years, not even a single prosecution witness had been examined... The proceedings taken by the respondents against the appellant were clearly an abuse of process of law.'- Core principles established:The Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and undue delay in trial proceedings can constitute a violation of this right. The Court emphasized that each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances, and the prosecution and courts have an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch.- Final determinations on each issue:The Court determined that the delay of 21 years in the trial proceedings was unreasonable and constituted a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. As a result, the Court quashed the charge sheet in C.C. No. 360 of 2003 and allowed the petitioner's criminal original petition.