AMAN KANHAYALAL MAKHIJA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing these petitions, the petitioners had challenged the continuation of pending prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the other related offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the Writ Petition No. 1642 of 1999 is concerned, there is history which may be referred to at this stage. These very petitioners had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 124 of 1999 in this Court. When that petition was heard finally, by an order dated 27th July, 1999, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the trial Court to hear the parties as to the framing of charges. The reason was obvious. If no charge could be framed, the matter would have ended at the trial Court itself.

(2.) THE said application was heard and decided against the petitioners. The learned Special Judge who passed the order on discharge application did so on 1st September, 1999 and dismissed the application. One of the contentions in the said discharge application was also based on the right of the petitioners/accused to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge had to enter into merits of the case while considering the request for discharge. It was specifically kept open by the Division Bench of this Court when it had disposed of the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 124 of 1999. The trial Court, therefore, had expressed its opinion on merits of the matter also. Needless to say, this was confined only to consider whether the charge was framed or not. It had also dealt with the aforesaid contention of a right to speedy trial and had held against the petitioners on that count also.