Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 75 (MEG)

Sushan Das v. State of Meghalaya

2021-10-25

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. By the instant application the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, for a direction to issue to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sohra to pass appropriate orders committing the case registered as GR Case No. 8 (6) of 2020 under Section 148/326/506/307/302/34 IPC read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act, 1984 to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the petitioner prayed for speedy trial of the said case as the charge sheet has been filed as far back as on 26.05.2020 and there has been no progress in the trial. 2. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the State respondents. 3. Mr. K. Paul, submits that pursuant to an FIR filed on 29.02.2020, a case bearing Shella P.S. Case No. 9(2) 2020 under Sections 148/326/506/307/302/34 IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 was registered and the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case, put in judicial custody for a substantial period of time and thereafter was released on bail. Learned Senior counsel submits that on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was then filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sohra on 26.05.2020, but however, even after the charge sheet was filed showing offences triable by a Court of Sessions, the committal order has not been passed. This he submits, has resulted in the pendency of the case before the Court the Judicial Magistrate, Sohra, and the same has not progressed which has also resulted in the infringement of the petitioner’s rights for a speedy trial and also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the State respondents has not advanced any submission but only submitted that the Court of Judicial Magistrate should act in accordance with law. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is proposed to dispose of this matter at the motion stage itself as the point in issue is very limited and purely involves a question of law. 6. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has provided for classification of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Court by which such offences are triable. 6. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has provided for classification of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Court by which such offences are triable. As per the charge sheet, two of the alleged offences namely 307 and 302 are triable by the Court of Sessions and the same being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, as per the provision of Section of 209 Cr.P.C. the case should have been committed to the Court of Sessions, especially after the said charge sheet had been filed. The same appears to have not been done by the Court of Judicial Magistrate even though the charge sheet has been filed since 26.05.2020 and over a year has elapsed since, notwithstanding the limited functioning of Courts due to the Corona Pandemic. 7. Without further dwelling on any other aspect such as the right to speedy trial which has been time and again reiterated and emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments and accepted to be an intrinsic aspect of the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the directions to the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sohra to pass appropriate orders in GR Case No. 8 (6) of 2020 in accordance with Section 209 Cr. P.C. as expeditiously as possible. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.