R.S. NAYAK Vs. A.R. ANTULAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1983 and Transferred Cases Nos. 347 and 348 of 1983, the Supreme Court passed the following operative order on February 1984 86 Bom. L.R.404 This appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order and decision of the learned Special Judge Shri R.B. Sule dated July 25, 1983 discharging the accused in Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983 is hereby set aside and the trial shall proceed further from the stage where the accused was discharged. The accused was the Chief Minister of a premier State - the State of Maharashtra. By a prosecution launched as early as on September 11, 1981, his character and integrity came under a cloud. Nearly 21 years have rolled by and the case has not moved an inch further. An expeditious trial is primarily in the interest of the accused and a mandate of Article 21. Expeditious disposal of a criminal case is in the interest of both, the prosecution and the accused. Therefore, Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Shri R, B. Sule are withdrawn and transferred to the High Court of Bombay with a request to the learned Chief Justice to assign these two cases to a sitting Judge of the High Court. On being so assigned, the learned Judge may proceed to expeditiously dispose of the cases preferably by holding the trial from, day to day.

(2.) PURSUANT to the above directions of the Supreme Court, My Lord the Chief Justice assigned these two Special Cases to me by an order dated March 1, 1984. The accused and the two complainants appeared before me yesterday (i.e. on March 12, 1984). The accused was represented by advocates before the learned Special Judge. However, yesterday he told this Court that he would not be engaging any advocates 'at least for the present'. He orally raised an objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the two Special Cases. ' I had suggested to the accused to put his objection in the form of an application. However, he declined the option and stated that he would like to argue the question orally without putting in any written application.

(3.) IN view of what is stated above, I direct that the accused should not address any submissions to the Court, propounding that the order of the Supreme Court is wrong on merits or in law.