Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 67 (MEG)

Neetu N. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2017-10-04

DINESH MAHESHWARI, VED PRAKASH VAISH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. This writ petition is de-linked from WP (C) No. 213 of 2014 and is taken up for disposal by this separate order. 2. The petitioner, who is an accused in Tura G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 for offences under Sections No. 120 (B)/365/511 IPC, has preferred this petition essentially with the grievance that even after filing of charge-sheet No. 18 of 2014 dated 30.06.2014; and herself having appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Tura on 13.02.2015, the trial of the case has not been taken up and even the charges have not been framed, denying her the right of speedy trial. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in this petition: "In the premises aforesaid it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Notice to the Respondents to show cause as to why the direction should not be given to the Learned Court of Smti. Paula S. Marak; Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sub-ordinate District Council Court, West Garo Hills District, Tura Meghalaya to disposed G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 Under Section 120 (B)/365/511 IPC pending disposal before the said Learned Court within period of 4 (four) months. Call for the records of the case and on perusal of records and on hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute; And be further pleased to pass such other Order/Orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper." 3. In this petition, the learned Government Advocate was granted time to complete his instructions on 15.12.2016 and again, on 31.01.2017. Thereafter, this petition was ordered to be listed along with WP(C) No. 213 of 2014, which relates to the alleged custodial death of the co-accused in G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014. However, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to keep this petition pending because, irrespective of the questions involved in the other petition, trial of the criminal case against the petitioner has to proceed and, for that matter, the limited prayer made in this petition deserves to be granted. 4. 4. On being queried in relation to the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner in the present case, the learned Government Advocate could not deny the right of the petitioner for a speedy trial. However, from the other submissions made, it appears that the papers related with G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 were forwarded to the office of the Government Advocate by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Tura with reference to the said other petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 213 of 2014. 5. We find it difficult to appreciate the manner of dealing with the matter by the officers concerned. The charge sheet against the petitioner was filed way back on 30.06.2014 and it was required of the prosecuting agency as also the learned Judicial Magistrate to ensure that the trial of the case proceeded expeditiously. However, it appears that with inexplicable sending of the record by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the learned Government Advocate, the trial of the case came to a halt. It is required to be imbibed by all the concerned that speedy trial is that of a fundamental right; and is required to be ensured by the Court as also by the prosecuting agency. It would be nothing but travesty of justice if necessary steps are not taken by the learned Presiding Officers as also by the Prosecutors to ensure proper progress of the trial of the criminal cases. Moreover, the unique Courts established by law in the State i.e., District Council Courts and the Subordinate District Council Courts are entrusted with the jurisdiction in relation to the matters involving the Scheduled Tribes; and the concerned Presiding Officers are required to keep in view the objectives for establishment of such Courts and ought to take all steps for advancing the cause of justice. 6. In the present case, we are unable to appreciate at all as to how the office of the Government Advocate could communicate with the learned Judicial Magistrate and as to how the learned Judicial Magistrate would send the record of the Court to the Government Advocate? It goes without saying that the Government Advocate is required to take instructions from the concerned Public Prosecutor and not from the Judicial Magistrate. It goes without saying that the Government Advocate is required to take instructions from the concerned Public Prosecutor and not from the Judicial Magistrate. It is apparent that the trial of the criminal case has got unnecessarily stuck only due to the want of clarity of respective roles on the part of the concerned officers. All the concerned are required to take the necessary steps to rectify and to ensure against recurrence of such mistakes in future. 7. In the totality of circumstances, we refrain from making any other comment in the matter but the office of the Government Advocate should immediately return the concerned record to the Judicial Magistrate of the Subordinate District Council Court, Tura, who would be expected to take note of the requirements of law as also the observations foregoing and to proceed most expeditiously in the matter, while reporting the progress to this Court. 8. Accordingly and in view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with the directions that the office of the Government Advocate shall immediately return the concerned record of the case i.e., G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Tura, who shall take up the trial of the case from the date of appearance of the petitioner and shall proceed with the same expeditiously, curbing against unnecessary delay. The learned Magistrate shall ensure that neither unnecessary long dates are given nor the matter is adjourned on any given date without cogent reason and sufficient cause. The learned Magistrate shall forward a copy of the order-sheet of every date of hearing in this matter to this Court without fail. It shall be required of the learned Magistrate as also the prosecuting agency to ensure that the trial of G.R. Case No. 148 of 2014 concludes at the earliest, preferably within six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is said to be on bail, is directed to remain present before the concerned Magistrate on 01.11.2017. 9. With the observations and directions foregoing, this petition stands disposed of.