Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 79 (MP)

M. A. Sherkhan v. State of M. P.

2011-01-19

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2011
ORDER 1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant in person has stated that he was charged for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC by taking cognizance of the offences by the FIR filed against him. Thereafter he was discharged from the offences and charged only for offences under sections 465 and 471 of the IPC on 28.3.2009 vide, Annexure-P/5. The applicant stated that thereafter the Court is not proceeding with the trial at all whereas the maximum sentence that can be imposed for such offences is only 3 years. He has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in the matter of Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R.S. Nayak [ AIR 1992 SC 1701 ] whereby the apex Court has held that although time limit for criminal proceeding cannot be drawn, if there is infringement right of speedy trial it should be so ordered. The Supreme Court had issued guidelines in regard to speedy trial. Relying upon of our own Court decision in the matter of State of M.P. v. Ganesh [ 2000 (2) JLJ 137 = 2000 (2) MPHT 69 ], the applicant stated that our Court had held that speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the right of the accused and interest of both the sides must be safeguarded. He stated that without reason the trial is being protracted only because there are other accused who are not appearing in the matter. Stating that he had a right to the speedy trial, the applicant prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the trial Court. 2. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and stated that the accused and the other accused are themselves responsible for the delay in the conduction of the trial stating that the accused persons have availed of the bail and do not appear on the dates set by the trial Court and the prosecution is, therefore, not responsible for the delay that has occasioned in the trial. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. Considering the above submissions and the documents filed along with the application, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. Considering the above submissions and the documents filed along with the application, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. However, considering the fact that there are almost a total of 54 accused and only 25 accused are appearing in the matter, it is directed that the trial Court shall decide the status of all the co-accused regarding their presence and liability 'to be tried separately within a period of three months from today even if it has to conduct the trial on the day to day basis. After deciding the status and if separate trial could be ordered the learned Judge of the Trial Court shall do so in the interest of justice. The application is, thus, allowed partly safeguarding the interest of both the sides and this Court expects strict compliance of the order. 4. With the above aforesaid observations, the application is allowed only to the extent mentioned hereinabove.