Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaggi Alias Jagdish Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062790
CRM-M-4154 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:062790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205 CRM-M-4154 of 2024
Date of Decision: 06.05.2024
Jaggi alias Jagdish Singh and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Parkash, Advocate, for
Mr. G.S. Virk, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the
judgment dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
Both the parties are at ad idem that in case the trial Court is
bound down to conclude the proceedings which have been remanded back
for fresh adjudication.
This court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that "Speedy trial" and
"fair trial" to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21.
There is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial
and the accused's right of fair trial. Unlike the accused's right of fair trial,
deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused
in defending himself. The right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. It
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062790
CRM-M-4154 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:062790
depends upon diverse circumstances. Each case of delay in conclusion of a
criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case.
Mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself
may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment.
The factors concerning the accused's right to speedy trial have to be weighed
vis-a-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people
in judicial system. Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not
preclude the rights of public justice. The nature and gravity of crime,
persons involved, social impact and societal needs must be weighed along
with the right of the accused to speedy trial and if the balance tilts in favour
of the former the long delay in conclusion of criminal trial should not
operate against the continuation of prosecution and if the right of the
accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and exigencies of
situation tilts the balance in his favour, the prosecution may be brought to an
end. These principles must apply as well when the appeal court is confronted
with the question whether or not retrial of an accused should be ordered."
Further reliance can be placed upon the dictum of Apex court in
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh CRA-62-63 OF 2014 SC wherein it
has been held that "Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal
matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However,
the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic
elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates,
the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for
expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or
be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the
basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may
be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062790
CRM-M-4154 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:062790
the cause of justice''.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this court deems
it appropriate to direct the trial court to make an endeavour to conclude the
trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It shall be brought
to the notice of the trial Court by the counsel for the petitioner.
With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
06.05.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
