BHASKAR PRABASKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This is typical of procrastination of an already long drawn trial. But the irony is that this is at the instance of the accused who should have normally complained of prolongation of his agony in facing the ordeal of a criminal prosecution. At one level almost fifty witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, but when there was a change of venue of the trial the accused demanded that the whole exercise should be repeated de novo. However, the Court to which he applied for such do novo trial spurned down his request and proposed to proceed from where the erstwhile forum arrived at with the trial of the case. The accused then approached the High Court for a direction that the trial should be conducted afresh over again but he did not succeed in the High Court as a single Judge declined to reverse the progress of the trial thus far attained. This appeal is at the instance of the accused. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we did not feel the necessity to call upon the respondent State to answer the grounds taken up by the appellant. Hence we dispose of this appeal on merits against the appellant.

(3.) Appellant was challaned before a Designated Court at Madras (now Chennai) which was constituted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' for short). The Judge of the Designated Court framed the charge against him for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, besides Sections 3 and 5 of TADA. During the progress of the trial the appellant was released on bail and he continues to be at large on the strength of the said bail order.