https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279135 The right to speedy trial under Article 21 requires a contextual balancing of the offence, the reasons for delay, the accused's conduct, and demonstrated prejudice; it does not justify an inflexible outer time-limit for criminal trials. Delay by itself is not a ground to terminate the prosecution or acquit the accused, and the proper course is to use procedural powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure expedition. Earlier directions treating lapse of time as an automatic basis for acquittal or discharge are stated to be incorrect. An acquittal resting solely on delay could not be sustained, and the trial was to proceed expeditiously. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 13:22:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279135 The right to speedy trial under Article 21 requires a contextual balancing of the offence, the reasons for delay, the accused's conduct, and demonstrated prejudice; it does not justify an inflexible outer time-limit for criminal trials. Delay by itself is not a ground to terminate the prosecution or acquit the accused, and the proper course is to use procedural powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure expedition. Earlier directions treating lapse of time as an automatic basis for acquittal or discharge are stated to be incorrect. An acquittal resting solely on delay could not be sustained, and the trial was to proceed expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279135