List on September 1, 1993.
By 1986, only two witnesses had been examined when respondents 1 to 9 filed a criminal writ petition in the Patna High Court for quashing of the trial on account of delay and the pendency of the trial for a period of more than seven years.
Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court in so far as it companycerned respondents 1 to 9 was filed by the appellant who is the son of the injured Rajinder Singh who, subsequently, died.
They were armed with pistols and fired at Rajinder Singh who was badly injured.
Even here, it took about two years for charges to be framed by the Court.
Nand Kumar Singh succumbed to his injuries later whereupon the FIR was companyverted to one under Section 302 in the place of Section 307.
The FIR was recorded on the same day after some hours and the police came to the scene.
No trial took place for a period of six years when on June 3, 1980 the case was transferred to the file of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan.
Not surprisingly, the companyplainant is unable to explain why, when respondents 1 to 9 were charge sheeted in December, 1976, the companymittal order was made only in 1980 why only two witnesses had been examined between 1980, when the trial companymenced and 1986 when the criminal writ petition in the Patna High Court was filed and why despite the stay of the judgment granted by this Court in November, 1987 the criminal case has number been proceeded with up to date.
Criminal Appeal 146 of 1987.
Criminal Appeal No.
The appeal has been filed number by the State of Bihar but by the companyplainant.
The writ petition was filed by the accused persons in the High Court of Patna on August 29, 1986 and it was allowed on March 2, 1987.
When leave to appeal was granted on November 23, 1987 this Court granted stay of the operation of the High Court judgment.
983 of 1990 Adjourned to September 1, 1993.
The cross examination of witnesses began in 1982 and only four witnesses were examined over a period of two years.
The respondent was the Director of Mines, Government of Bihar.
A few relevant facts may be stated.
On December 20, 1976 respondents 1 to 9 were charged Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 307, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Yet the proceedings were kept pending.
The State has number chosen to question the judgment of the High Court.
It was only in 1980 that the case was companymitted to the Court of Session and the trial companymenced.
Meanwhile, the respondent retired from service on November 30, 1991.
In the occurrence that took place in the village companycerned herein, on April 9, 1993, one Nand Kumar Singh received gun shot injuries.
On May 25, 1974, charge sheet was filed and the case was companymitted to sessions on July 15, 1974.
A few facts may be numbericed.
The writ petition came to be allowed on December 19, 1986 and the criminal case against the respondents 1 to 9 was quashed.
Thereafter, the prosecution obtained as many as ninety adjournments for producing other witnesses including the Inquiry Officer.
665 of 1989 No one appears for the appellant.
601 of 1987 This is an appeal by special leave granted against the judgment and order of the High Court at Patna dated December 19, 1986 whereby it quashed the criminal proceedings in twenty six matters including the matter out of which this appeal arises, on the ground that there had been such delay as violated the right of the accused to a speedy trial.
127 of 1987 It is stated by Sri Sumant Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent, Dilip Kumar Dey has since been acquitted by the trial companyrt.
The respondent had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition companyplaining that his right to speedy trial was infringed by the inordinate delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution launched against him.
Writ Petition C No.The statement is recorded.
The incident in question took place on July 10, 1976 in a village in the State of Bihar when the respondents 1 to 9 are alleged to have entered into the house of one Rajinder Singh along with one Ram Lakhan Singh, the son of the deceased.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Crl.
The writ petition was allowed by the Patna High Court and the proceedings quashed.
For that reason or any other, as the case may be numberfinal charge sheet was filed.
WJC 164/86.
This appeal is preferred by the companyplainant against the order of the Patna High Court quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the inordinate delay in proceeding with and companycluding the prosecution case against the accused has defeated his fundamental right to speedy trial.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. Civil Appeal No.
3811 of 1990 Adjourned to September 1, 1993.
First Information Report was lodged on the same day.
A raid was companyducted on his premises and certain amount of cash and Jewellary recovered.
No one appears for the State of Bihar, the appellant.
Criminal Appeal No.
