RAGHUMANI MANDI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for a direction to dispose of Jail Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1994 pending before this Court early. According to him, Article 21 of the Constitution of India creates a right in the accused to be tried expeditiously, and a direction for early disposal of the aforesaid Jail Criminal Appeal admitted by this Court on 26 -8 -1994 is warranted. Petitioner has filed the aforesaid Jail Criminal Appeal challenging Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Koraput, Jeypore in SC 94 of 1994. Dr. V. Prithvi Raj, Advocate has been engaged by Orissa High Court Legal Aid Committee to conduct the aforesaid appeal. Petitioner has alternatively prayed that in case early disposal of appeal is not practicable, he should be re eased on bail.

(2.) AS observed by apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antuly v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1701, fair, just and reasonable procedure implict in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Speedy trial is also in the public interest. It is in the interest of all concerned that guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances, and right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the constitution encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, enquiry, trial appeal, revision and retrial. So far as accused is concerned, right to speedy trial imports that period of remand and pre -conviction detention should be as short as possible. Put differently, accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction. The worry, anxiety, expenses and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from unduly prolonged investigation, enquiry or trial should be minimal. Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non -availability of witnesses or otherwise. All criminal prosecutions cause some degree of concern and hardship to the accused, but such side -effects should be kept to a minimum and the trial brought to an end within a reasonable time. What is meant by 'a reasonable time' would vary from case to case and would depend on the circumstances and local conditions. The Court has to strike a balance between having an effective system of administration of justice and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution. In carrying out such an exercise. Court would consider not only period of delay but the reasons therefor. It is not possible in the very nature of things and present day circumstances to draw a time -limit beyond which a criminal proceeding will not be allowed to go. Wherever a complaint of infringement of right to speedy trial is made, the Court has to consider all the circumstances of the case and arrive at a decision whether in fact the proceedings have been pending for an unjustifiably long period. In Mungroo v. R. (1992) LRC (Const) 591 : (1991) 1 WIR 1351, Lord Templeman expressed the following view: