Ajay Kumar Modi vs Fast Tract Court (Junior ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3168 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1734 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Modi
 
Respondent :- Fast Tract Court (Junior Division)-I And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Sushant
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Today the Advocates are abstaining from work. I have perused the record.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to the respondents.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia with the prayer to direct the Fast Track Court (Junior Division)- I, Varanasi to decide the Original Suit No.573 of 1990 (Madhyam Kamjor Aya Varg Jan Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. and others Vs. Smt. Haushla Singh and others) expeditiously.

4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Original Suit No573 of 1990 has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents namely Madhyam Kamjor Aya Varg Jan Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. along with others. The aforesaid suit is pending from last more than 30 years. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgements in this petition:-

I. Nimeon Sharma Vs. State of Meghalaya (1980) 1 SCC 700 :1980 SCC (Cri) 328

II. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93

III. Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98

IV. Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569

V. P. Ramchandara Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830,

VI. Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 1

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nimeon Sharma Vs. State of Meghalaya (1980) 1 SCC 700 :1980 SCC (Cri) 328 held that the delay in investigation and trials was a wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Sri Krishna Iyer J. said:-

"... Criminal justice breaks down at a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in Sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases including investigations and trials. It is unfortunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have been such considerable delay in investigations by the police in utter disregard of the fact the citizen has been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is accused of an offence. We do not approve of this course and breach of the rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this chaotic stage of affairs verging on wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under the Constitution especially under Article 21 as interpreted by this Court."

6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225:1992 SCC (Cri) 93, held that fair, just and reasonable procedure was implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a right to the accused to be tried speedy. Paragraph 86 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-

86. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. These propositions are :

1. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

2. Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98 held that it is the constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted below:-

The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. It is also the constitutional obligation of this Court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people as a sentinel on the qui-vive, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial by issuing the necessary directions to the State which may include taking of positive action, such as augmenting and strengthening the investigative machinery, setting up new courts, building new court houses, appointment of additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure speedy trial.

8. In the case of Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under the Constitution. The relevant paragraph No.86 of the judgment is quoted below:

"86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

9. In the case of P. Ramchandara Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial in short everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict the two being respectively the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem - of the journey which an accused must necessarily undertake once faced with an implication. The constitutional philosophy propounded as right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far-off peak.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 1 has held that right to speedy trial is a right of a litigant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. In view of the above discussion and the matter is pending for more than last 30 years, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the court below to consider and decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law expeditiously and positively within a period of eight months from the date of production of a self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

Order Date :- 5.3.2021

saqlain