Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 501 (CAL)

Golam Rabban Sk. v. State of West Bengal

2001-08-10

NARAYAN CHANDRA SIL

body2001
JUDGMENT Narayan Chandra Sil, J. 1. The present revisional application was directed under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1997 arising out of Sagardighi P.S. Case No.5 dated 4.6.1983 in G.R Case No. 301 of 1983 (T.R 837/1999) (State vs. Jahir Sk. & Ors.) now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad. 2. It is stated that the case was started under sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 447, 448, 323, 324, 302 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that the case was adjourned on several occasions without any reason and without any fault of the petitioner and no charge had been framed till date whereby the fundamental rights of the accused persons for speedy trial has been infringed. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner before me that the petitioner was put under suspension and he is to retire from his service in the month of February, 2002. It is also pointed out by him that one of the accused persons is a juvenile delinquent and there is no juvenile court in the district of Murshidabad. The learned Advocate for the appellant has referred to the ratio decided in the case of S.N. Chowdhury vs. The State of West Bengal, 2001 C.Cr. L. R Cal 90, in which it was decided by the Single Bench of this High Court that the speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right of the accused and in view of the facts and circumstances of that case the proceeding was quashed. 3. The learned Advocate for the State has argued on the other hand before me that there was no fault of the prosecution for such delay to dispose of this case. It is pointed out by him that the charge sheet in the instant case was submitted as far back as on 15.1.1985 and the delay in disposal of the case is mainly due to the fault of the accused persons. It is pointed out by him that in the instant case there are as many as 28 accused persons and a considerable period of time had elapsed for their appearance before the learned lower court. It is pointed out by him that in the instant case there are as many as 28 accused persons and a considerable period of time had elapsed for their appearance before the learned lower court. The learned Advocate for the State has referred to the ratio decided in the case of Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr. L.J. 4541: 1998 C. Cr. L. RSC 385. 4. On examination of the materials placed in the file it appears that the accused persons must be taken into reckoning in the delay caused in disposal of the case by the learned trial Judge at least till 22.11.2000, for, the certified copies of the order-sheets have been supplied to us till that date. The Supreme Court from time to time in several judicial pronouncements has enunciated the principle on the fundamental rights of the accused persons for speedy disposal and thus amongst other guidelines made in the ratio decided in the case of Raj Deo Sharma vs. The State of Bihar, 1998 C. Cr. L. R, SC 385, in which the propositions laid down in A.R. Antulay's case ( AIR 1992 SC 1701 ) have been supplemented that if the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial is responsible for the conclusion of the trial, no court is obliged to close the prosecution evidence. Thus, having relied on the some plea enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court there appears no merits of the revisional application filed before us and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Therefore, the present revisional application is dismissed on contest. The trial Judge is, however, directed to take appropriate steps to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within six months from the receipt of the copy of this judgment and preferably within the month of January, 2002 and also to take appropriate steps for the trial of the juvenile delinquent, if any, in accordance with the law. A copy of this judgment be sent down forthwith to the learned trial court for compliance. Revisional application dismissed.