TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x of the complaint given by the second respondent is that the second respondent was working as a Correspondent of Standard Matriculation School situated at Lakshmipuram, Palani. The petitioner approached her because she is a highly influential person having good contacts in Educational Department officials. Therefore, the petitioner is capability of increase the number of students and also reputation of School and thus requested to provide job. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed as a Director and there was an agreement between them to run the School. While being so, the petitioner was interested for illegal enrichment of School amounts and demanded a car to be purchased for proper working of the school. The second respondent also spent money for maintaining the car and other expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,43,450/-. Further, the petitioner alleged that she cancelled the agreement entered between them and also committed threatened of students address and also cheques. Hence, the complaint. 4. He further submitted that after completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken in C.C. No. 360 of 2003 and the petitioner is regul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard, Mr. I. Lawrance, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent. 8. The petitioner is a sole accused. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent alleged that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,44,540/- by purchasing a car and other expenditure made by the second respondent to maintain the car and the school Annual Day celebrations. Further alleged that the petitioner changed the agreement entered between them. Accordingly, the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the charge. 9. On perusal of the records shows that the petitioner was appointed as a Director of the School, which was run by the second respondent. The car purchased by the second respondent for the School and maintained by the second respondent, since she is the correspondent of the School to attract the offence under Sections 406, 467, 468,471 and 379 of IPC. There is absolutely no material evidence to attract the said charges as against the petitioner. 10. Further, no list of witness has been spoken about the allegations as alleged by the prosecution to prove th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Amendment in the Constitution of the USA providing in express terms the right of an 'accused' to be tried speedily. Yet, similar provision was not incorporated in the Indian Constitution. It was submitted in that case that it is neither permissible nor possible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time. The US Supreme Court also had refused to do so. 15. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made by this Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1069 Cri. LJ 1036 as under: "We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of as interpreted by this Court in Article 21 [(1978) 1 SCC 248]. We have held in that case that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be "reasonable, fair and just". If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not "reasonable, fair or just", ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court observed that the scales must be held even between the prosecution and the accused. In the facts of that case, the Court refused to order trial on account of the time already spent and other relevant circumstances of that case. 19. In the case of A.R. Antulay (supra), this Court gave propositions meant to serve as guidelines. This Court held that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. This Court further observed as under: "(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. (2) Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re- trial. That is how, this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e court seized of an individual case to find out from the totality of circumstances of a given case if the quantum of time consumed up to a given point of time amounted to violation of Article 21, and if so, then to terminate the particular proceedings, and if not, then to proceed ahead. The test is whether the proceedings or trial has remained pending for such a length of time that the inordinate delay can legitimately be called oppressive and unwarranted. It would be pertinent to mention that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. "These guarantees are the most basic rights preserved by the Constitution; fundamental liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made them applicable to all States." 21. The Constitutional guarantee is for the protection of both the accused and the society. Even in the United States where there has been a constitutional amendment recognizing speedy trial as an extremely valuable right of the accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst prolonged imprisonment; it relieves him of the anxiety and public suspicion attendant upon an untried accusation of crime; and, like statutes of limitation, it prevents him from being exposed to the hazards of a trial after the lapse of so great a time that the means of proving his innocence may have been lost. In the case of State v. Carrillo [41 Ariz 170, 16 P 2d 965], it has been held that an accused who has been denied speedy trial, or who has not been brought to trial within the time required by an implementing statute, can generally move to dismiss the prosecution on that ground. Rule 48 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Prosecution authorizes dismissal if there is unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to a grand jury or in filing an information against an accused who has been held to answer to the district court, or if there is unnecessary delay in bringing an accused to trial. This rule has the same effect in implementing the Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial, as an act of Congress would have had. 25. A Constitution Bench of this Court has, in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, mentioned that the right to a speedy trial is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21." This Court in a number of cases has reiterated that speedy trial is one of the facets of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 and the law must ensure 'reasonable, just and fair' procedure which has a creative connotation after the decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra). 27. When we examine the instant case in the light of the aforementioned decisions of this Court and of the US Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear 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 de....