V R KITTUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. In this case, undisputedly the accused V.R. Kittur appeared on 19th August, 1994. From the copies of the order sheets it appears that he regularly attended the proceedings before the learned Trial Court except once when he was exempted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon "Common Cause", A Registered Society v. Union of India b Ors., JT 1996 (4) SC 701. Paras 4 - 2(f) and 5 of that judgment reads as under :

(2.) In the second "Common Cause" case reported as "Common Cause", A Registered Society v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 VIII AD SC 746=ll (1996) CCR 180 (SC), it was further clarified as under :

(3.) On the basis of this judgment learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused appeared on 19th August, 1994. The accused was summoned to appear on 19th August, 1994 and he appeared. More than two years have passed. The offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code is punishable by imprisonment for three years or fine or both and the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is also punishable with imprisonment of the term of three years or fine, which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000.00 , or both. Learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the matter is covered by paras 4-2(f) and 5 of the first "Common Cause" judgment mentioned above. He further submits that the second "Common Cause" judgment insists that such a benefit should not be granted to an accused who himself is causing dilatory tactics by repeatedly using the word "accused concerned". Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the charge was framed on 7th September, 1996 and more than two years have passed since then. Consequently, the matter would also be rather covered by Rajdeo Sharma v .State of Bihar JT 1998 (7) SC 1=IV (1998) CCR 11 (SC)=VIII (1998) SLT 194 (SC).