Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3021 (ALL)

GAFOOR AHMED v. CHAND BABU

2013-12-12

KALIMULLAH KHAN

body2013
Kalimullah Khan,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the complainant, petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.6.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2013 ( Gafoor Ahmed Vs. Chand Babu and others) arising out of complaint case no. 4253 of 2008 under Sections 435, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bilaspur, District- Rampur. 3. In nutshell, complainant Gafoor Ahmed appears to have made an application under Section 156( 3) Cr.P.C. against respondents no. 1 to 5 making an accusation against them, which constitute offence under Sections 435, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The said application was treated as criminal complaint and after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid accused respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Sections 435, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Accused appeared and in due course the date was fixed for recording statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Prosecution himself examined as P.W.-1 on 25.2.2011, thereafter, till date, he did not examine any other witness under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and he did not pay even cost imposed by trial court at his adjournment application as a result of which, vide order dated 23.1.2013 learned trial court closed the prosecution evidence and fixed the date for hearing on the point of charge. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant petitioner filed criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2013 and was disposed of on merit vide order dated 1.6.2013 holding that the order passed by learned Magistrate on 23.1.2013 did not suffer from any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety. 5. After dismissal of the said criminal revision, complainant has preferred this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. 5. After dismissal of the said criminal revision, complainant has preferred this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that true it is, that more than three dozen of dates have been obtained by the complainant to adduce his evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. but if one more and no further opportunity is given for adducing the evidence under the aforesaid section, it may serve the ends of justice. 7. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of U.P. opposite party no. 6 has repelled the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that it would be a mockery of judicial system, if such latitude is given to the complainant to cause harassment to all the accused who are facing trial since 2008. 8. For about four years the trial is pending for recording evidence of complainant and his witnesses under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Certified copy of the ordersheet maintained on trial court has been filed which gives an impression that the date for recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. is being fixed right since 2010 and thereafter, more than 38 dates have been given as pointed out by revisional court for adducing the evidence under Sections 244 Cr.P.C. but he did not avail the same. He further submitted that it is prima facie established that the complainant is not interested in the conviction of the accused rather he is interested in harassing all the accused persons i.e. opposite party no.1 to 5. 9. I have gone through the record. More than sufficient opportunities have already been given to the complainant to adduce his evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and if he did not avail the same, he is himself responsible and the court of law is not supposed to come to his rescue. Courts of law are supposed to be very careful in such matters and they are not silent spectator of undue harassments of accused for no fault of their own. Adjourning the case fixing several dozens of dates without recording any justified reason tantamounts to unnecessary harassment of accused at the instance of prosecution and that is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees speedy trial and justice. 10. Speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. Speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. The aforesaid article confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life and liberty under a procedure prescribed by law. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21. The procedure so prescribed must ensure a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. It is conceded that some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, fairness by Article 21 would receive a jolt. The speedy trial is implicit in the spectrum of Article 21 of the Constitution. 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. The petition lacks merit and therefore, it stands dismissed at admission stage itself.