https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184468 The constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, reinforced by the obligation of continuous and expeditious trial management under Section 309(1) CrPC, was held to be violated where the prosecution allowed the case to remain stalled for more than a decade without satisfactory explanation. Applying the test of reasonableness, responsibility for the delay, the nature of the offence, and the absence of any material showing delay by the accused, the HC found the inordinate lapse attributable to the prosecution. As no record supported the explanation regarding substitution of the complainant, continuation of the proceedings was not justified and the criminal case was quashed, with the petitioner discharged. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:17:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184468 The constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, reinforced by the obligation of continuous and expeditious trial management under Section 309(1) CrPC, was held to be violated where the prosecution allowed the case to remain stalled for more than a decade without satisfactory explanation. Applying the test of reasonableness, responsibility for the delay, the nature of the offence, and the absence of any material showing delay by the accused, the HC found the inordinate lapse attributable to the prosecution. As no record supported the explanation regarding substitution of the complainant, continuation of the proceedings was not justified and the criminal case was quashed, with the petitioner discharged. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184468