Taking judicial cognizance of the “hazardous trend” on the part of the prosecution to delay proceedings for unexplained reasons, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear to both the states and the Union Territory of Chandigarh that this system was required to be strengthened with the help of advanced technology to serve official witnesses effectively, ensure their attendance and fix responsibility.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri's direction came in a case where a 36-year-old woman was facing imprisonment for nearly one-and-a-half years in a drug case registered at Lambi police station in Muktsar district. But none of the prosecution witnesses was examined even though the trial court had issued summons at least 14 times.
Issuing notices to the state of Haryana and also to Chandigarh, Justice Puri said that there is a need to further explore the methods and mechanisms to check this menace. As such, Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh were required to consider the issue at the "highest level" before apprising the court.
Justice Puri asserted that the High Court has observed in several cases - particularly in NDPS cases - that the prosecution was delayed due to unclear reasons. Not only were summons issued repeatedly to official witnesses/police officers including Investigating Officers, but bailable and non-bailable warrants were also issued to them at times.
The trial court, rather, had to issue summons and warrants several times to the official witnesses, who themselves had set the criminal law in motion. As a result, the trial got delayed at the hands of the prosecution.
Justice Puri said that "The right to a speedy trial is a part of the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part-III of the Constitution of India and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be abrogated by reason of such conduct of prosecution by not producing it before the court the number of years, resulting in delay in trial and adversely affecting the rights of the accused guaranteed under the Constitution.”
Justice Puri appointed advocate Kulwant Singh Boparai as amicus curie to assist the bench. Citing facts, Justice Puri observed that there was no justification on the part of the State counsel for the delay by the prosecution when the criminal law machinery was set into motion by the prosecution itself.
Taking these and other factors into consideration, Justice Puri observed, "The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the present case has been framed by the police on account of past rivalry assumes some significance in view of the conduct of the prosecution."
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
