The Allahabad High Court observed that in the past the Courts were more liberal in granting adjournments and even presently the Courts normally accommodate Advocates. But it cannot lose sight of the changing scenario of the entire judicial system.
The work load is ever increasing and this Court has not less than 150 matters listed before it on any single day, several of those are not taken up due to paucity of time. The practice of passing over the matters due to engagement of the learned Counsel elsewhere has also played its bit in increasing pendency of the cases as every such request consumes at least a minute or two and in case such requests are accepted in numerous matters, it would result in a considerable waste of time, because every minute of the Court is precious and should be used productively.
The Allahabad High Court is generally talked about for its highest pendency, which at the start of this day was 10,60,451, out of which, 4,96,876 cases are of criminal nature and hence, it was requested that all the learned Counsel cooperates in the speedy dispensation of justice by decreasing the non- productive expenditure of the Court’s time.
Brief Facts:
FIR was lodged by a a Sales Tax Officer against the applicant and other unnamed persons alleging that when informant was in his office, the Applicant and other Accused entered his office and beat him up.
The Applicant was convicted under Sections 332 and 506 of the IPC and hence, an appeal was filed. The execution of the sentence was suspended.
The Applicant filed an application for correction/modification of the order stating that the order mentions stay of sentence only and stay of conviction was omitted from being transcribed and it should also be stayed. The Session Court rejected the application. Hence, the present matter.
Contentions of the Interveners:
It was argued that as the question of maintainability of an application under Section 389 (2) Cr.P.C. before this Court during pendency of an appeal before the Session Court is pending consideration of a larger bench, this Court should refrain from hearing the application under Section 389 (2) Cr.P.C.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted by mere reference of a question to a larger bench would not dilute the law already laid down by Courts, hence, it was held that this Court can hear the application even if the matter is referred to a larger bench.
The Bench opined that a person cannot be denied benefit of statutory provisions merely with the object of improving the social image of the judiciary, as while deciding any case, the Court has to primarily keep into mind all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of law. The opinion of the public should not influence the decision of a Judge.
The Applicant is a 78 year old man, leader of the traders and a former member of Rajya Sabha and a former member of Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh. It was noted that there may be serious consequences of the Applicant’s conviction, which could not be undone or reversed in case his appeal against conviction is allowed.
The Court further after the judgement, observed that in the past the Courts were more liberal in granting adjournments and even presently the Courts normally accommodate Advocates. But it cannot lose sight of the changing scenario of the entire judicial system. The work load is ever increasing and this Court has not less than 150 matters listed before it on any single day, several of those are not taken up due to paucity of time. The practice of passing over the matters due to engagement of the learned Counsel elsewhere has also played its bit in increasing pendency of the cases as every such request consumes at least a minute or two and in case such requests are accepted in numerous matters, it would result in a considerable waste of time, because every minute of the Court is precious and should be used productively. The Allahabad High Court is generally talked about for its highest pendency, which at the start of this day was 10,60,451, out of which, 4,96,876 cases are of criminal nature and hence, it was requested that all the learned Counsel cooperate in speedy dispensation of justice by decreasing the non- productive expenditure of the Court’s time.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the application was allowed.
Case Title: Smt. Banwari Lal Kanchhal v. State Of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Application U/S 389(2) No. - 1 Of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Advocates for Applicant: Advs. Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law,Ambrish Singh Yadav,Nadeem Murtaza
Advocate for Opposite Party: Adv. Vijay Dixit
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
