The Author, L.M Grover is an Advocate practising in the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court of India in 1979 in the celebrated case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 SCR (3) 532 has held that right to speedy trial is part of Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Despite such ruling by the Hon’ble Apex Court about four decades ago the right to speedy trial has remained a dream for people of India fighting or defending their right in the courts of law in the country. Moreover the present pandemic era has significantly added to this pendency of cases in India as it is almost a year that courts in the country in various states have been hearing only urgent cases keeping behind the back other non-urgent cases and functioned in proper and effective manner only for about short period from March 2020 to till date when pandemic situation was under control. No doubt, it’s happened only due to different scenario of Covid 19 as sometime it was on higher side and some time it was on lower side.
This huge pendency of cases pose one of the most important question in the mind of everyone that as to what type of cases are making up the substantial part of pendency of cases. This question has been answered by the three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the current year only in its order dated 03rd March, 2021 in the case of This question has been answered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the current year only in its order dated 03rd March, 2021 in the case of In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, 2021 whereby the Bench observed that “There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that matters under the NI Act have passed what by now has become an intractable problem/accounting for close to 30 to 40 percent of the pendency in the trail courts and very high percentage in the High Courts also”. Hence it is clear that cases of cheque dishonour have contributed substantially to the huge pendency of the cases despite the mandate of concluding the trial of such case within the period of six months from the date of filing the complaint under the provision of Section 143 sub section 3 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.The three judge bench referred the said matter to the larger bench. Even to rescue such gruesome condition the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the said case has issued certain relevant directions in the order dated 16th April, 2021 that can go in a long way to speed up the trial of the cheque dishonour cases.
But it is pertinent to mention that only issuance of directions without compliance of the same by all the stakeholders would render the said directions and spirit of the said directives ineffective and without any merit. The author of the present article is writing the same to make the readers thereof aware of one very relevant non-reported incident of how the spirit of said judgment/directions can be made effective.
In one of the case under section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 pending before trial court presided over by Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, L.D. M.M., West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi titled as ‘ Kanwal Nain Singh Mokha vs. Rekha Khurana’, bearing case no. 19224/2016 in which the accused was represented by the author, the counsel for the complainant namely Sh. Praveen Suri prayed before the court that to uphold the spirit of the recent directions by the Apex Court for speedy trial of cases under section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 the trial of the present matter should be proceeded with which is presently at the stage of Complainant Evidence and the author should conduct the cross examination of the complainant so that present matter can be dealt with in time bound manner as 5 years have already elapsed since filing of present case. When asked for the same by the Hon’ble Court the author readily agreed to the plea of the counsel for complainant and submitted his consent to the court for conducting the cross examination of the complainant.
While recording the consent of both the counsels the trial court in a first of its kind order in the country as per me for non- urgent matter on 26th June, 2021 directed the author to conduct the cross examination of the complainant through VC (Video Conferencing) as per the VC rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter ,in compliance of the said order the counsel for the accused i.e. the author conducted the cross examination of the complainant in strict compliance of VC Rules of Hon’ble Delhi High Court which lasted for about 2 hours on 30.06.2021 and hence it was concluded on the said date and the matter was posted for recording of the statement of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the order dated 30th June, 2021 the trial court on the plea by the author that it is not possible for the accused being an old aged lady to appear before the court for recording of statement and insisted that statement should be recorded by resorting to method envisaged under Section 313 sub section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. by way of written statement in answer to questionnaire send by the court. With the aid of activism of the L.D. M.M. the said request of the author on behalf of accused was allowed in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basavaraj R Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 740 whereby Apex Court has held that resort to Section 313 (5) of the Cr. PC, 1973 can be made if accused is unable to appear before court due to exceptional exigency.
The author has written the said incident to make all the stakeholders of the legal field aware of the way one can speed up the legal snail whose pace has proved to be providing impetus to the quote ‘Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’. Mainly the counsel for the parties, the judicial officers and the parties themselves and the court staff can provide a fruitful results if they abide by such directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and not only read them. Those complaining that there is no advancement in pending court cases owing to the pandemic this incident of activism on part of the L.D. MM and counsel for parties is a motivation and should be adhered to use the technology as a medium to uphold the right of the speedy trial of litigants and this will also surely restore the faith of general public in the Legal System of the Country.
Read Orders @LatestLaws.com:
