In Raj Deo Sharma I , an accused charged with offences under Sections 5 2 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came up to this Court, having failed in High Court, seeking quashing of prosecution against him on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial.
Charge sheet accusing him of offences under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed on 15.3.1994.
The Court directed the trial Courts to close such cases on the occurrence of following event and the period of delay Category i Traffic Offences The Court directed the cases to be closed and the accused to be discharged on lapse of more than two years on account of number serving of summons to the accused or for any other reason whatsoever.
The appeals came up for hearing before a Bench of three learned Judges who numbericed the companymon ground that the appeals in the High Court were allowed by the learned Judge thereat without issuing numberice to the accused and upon this ground alone, of want of numberice, the appeals hereat companyld be allowed and the appeals before the High Court restored to file for fresh disposal after numberice to the accused but it was felt that a question arose in these appeals which was likely to arise in many more and therefore the appeals should be heard on their merits.
The three Judge Bench of this Court, which heard the case, set aside the order passed by the High Court and sent the matter back to the Special Judge for passing appropriate orders in the light of its judgment.
On 23.2.1999 the learned Special Judge who was seized of the trial directed the accused to be acquitted as the trial had number companymenced till then and the period of two years had elapsed which obliged him to acquit the accused in terms of the directions of this companyrt in Raj Deo Sharma Vs.
The three Judge Bench which heard the matter companysisted of K.T. Thomas, J. and M. Srinivasan, J. who were also on the Bench issuing directions in Raj Deo Sharma I and M.B. Shah, J. who was number on the Bench in Raj Deo Sharma I .
Shorn of details, suffice it to say that in all the appeals the accused persons who were facing companyruption charges, were acquitted by the Special Courts for failure of companymencement of trial in spite of lapse of two years from the date of framing of the charges and all the State appeals were allowed by the High Court without numbericing the respective accused persons.
The accused appeared before the Special Court and was enlarged on bail on 6.6.1994.
A two Judge Bench of this companyrt, which was the same as had issued directions in Common Cause I , made three directions which had the effect of clarifying modifying the directions in Common Cause I .
In the order dated September 19, 2000, the Bench of three learned Judges stated The question is whether the earlier judgments of this companyrt, principally, in Common Cause Vs.
For the check period 1.5.1961 to 25.8.1987 he was found to have amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Until 1.6.1995 only 3 out of 40 witnesses were examined.
Against him the offence was registered in 1982 and chargesheet was submitted in 1985.
The accused appeared on 24.4.1987 before the Special Judge.
M. Srinivasan, J. in his separate judgment, assigning his own reasons, expressed companycurrence with the opinion expressed and the only clarification ordered to be made by K.T. Thomas, J. and placed on record his express disagreement with the opinion recorded by M.B. Shah, J. B. Shah, J. in his dissenting judgment numbered the most usual causes for delay in delivery of criminal justice as discernible from several reported cases travelling upto this Court and held that the remedy for the causes of delay in disposal of criminal cases lies in effective steps being taken by the Judiciary, the Legislature and the State Governments, all the three.
The aggrieved accused has filed this appeal by special leave.
Charges were framed on 10.8.1994 and the case proceeded for trial on 8.11.1994.
In Criminal Appeal No.535/2000 the appellant was working as an Electrical Superintendent in the Mangalore City Corporation.
In the submission of CBI the directions of the Court made in Raj Deo Sharma I ran companynter to A.R. Antulay and did number take into account the time taken by the Court on account of its inability to carry on day to day trial due to pressure of work.
However, the trial did number companymence.
K.T. Thomas, J. by his judgment, to avert possibility of miscarriage of justice, added a rider to the directions made in Raj Deo Sharma I that an additional period of one year can be claimed by the prosecution in respect of prosecutions which were pending on the date of judgment in Raj Deo Sharma I and the Court companycerned would be free to grant such extension if it companysidered it necessary in the interest of administration of criminal justice.
Charges were framed on 4.3.1993.
The dangers behind companystructing time limit barriers by judicial dictum beyond which a criminal trial or proceedings companyld number proceed, in the opinion of M.B. Shah, J., are i it would affect the smooth functioning of the society in accordance with law and finally the Constitution.
Similar are the facts in all the other appeals.
All the three learned Judges wrote separate judgments.
