AMANDEEP SINGH SARAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave directed against the order dtd. 18/4/2019 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCRC No.1730/2019, owing to various circumstances including the inordinate delay occasioned in the matter of trial, now, poses a legal conundrum. The appellant is facing trial before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in criminal case arising from FIR No.22/2015 of Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh, registered under Ss. 420, 409/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred for short 'IPC') and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Banning Act') and Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In terms of Sec. 29(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC') the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur where the case is now pending can only impose, in case found him guilty, a maximum corporeal punishment of a term up to 7 years even if it is of the view that the appellant deserves more severe punishment. We may hasten to clarify here that we shall not be understood to have expressed an opinion that the appellant deserves to be convicted and handed down such a sentence. Even the question whether he should be convicted or acquitted is a matter of evidence and to be decided by the trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, at the appropriate stage of trial. But then, by now the appellant had already undergone incarceration for a term of more than eight years. We do not think it just or appropriate to treat this situation as a mere happenstance and leave it there for the appellant to get resolved or remedied later. Taking note of the scope of the SLP this Court, normally, would be loath to permit the parties to submit beyond the question whether to grant or not to grant bail, but the very peculiar circumstances involved and also evolved tends us to think that disinclination to go into the legal conundrum emerging in this case may result in great miscarriage of justice in all probabilities. It is also to be noted that both sides submit and pray that appropriate orders be passed to ensure a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the parties were heard in extenso.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sourbh Roy, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondent State.

(3.) We have already noted that the appellant herein has been charged for commission of various offences under the IPC including indictment under Sec. 409, IPC punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine and under the stated provisions of the two enactments mentioned hereinbefore. Essentially, taking into account the fact that the appellant had already undergone incarceration for more than 8 years as per order dtd. 2/8/2023, this Court called for an affidavit from the respondent-State as to the steps taken to apprehend the other absconding accused and also indicating the stage of trial proceedings as on date.