STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BALAWANTRAI BHIKABHAI PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. A reference has made to this Court by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore (acting as Special Judge) in Special Cases Nos. 5/84, 10/84, 12/84, 13 /84 and 20/84. The question referred to this Court is:

(2.) This does not mean that the accused who are facing trial for long number of years, and who contend that the continuance of such prosecution is in breach of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, are without remedy. All that is observed at this stage is that a reference such as the one made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, is not maintainable in terms of S. 395 of the Code. The accused have a right to move the High Court in its Writ Jurisdiction and claim appropriate remedy for the alleged breach of their right guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. If so advised, the accused may even move this Court by a criminal petition under S. 482 of the Code, if it be their case that continuance of the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. The jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition in cases where fundamental rights are breached is vested, in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and we do not think that this power can be exercised by a Sessions Court, even if we were to hold that continuation of the trial amounted to breach of the fundamental rights of the accused.

(3.) We are, therefore, of the view that the reference made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is incompetent. The Criminal Reference is, therefore, dismissed. However, it will be open to the accused persons to seek their remedy before an appropriate forum. Reference dismissed.