NISAMANI MOHAPATA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in essence has prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him on account of long passage of time. According to him, Article 21 of the Constitution of India creates a right in the accused to be tried expeditiously.

(2.) FACTUAL position as stated by Petitioner is that GR Case No. 275 of 1986 was instituted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paradeep at Kujang on 26.6.1986. On account of unintended nonappearance, matter could not be taken up for a long time and ultimately he came to know that it has not been disposed of and NEW has been issued for nonappearance. Distance Petitioner's house from the Court is 100 kms. and was depending on the learned Counsel engaged. As proper steps could not be taken by the counsel, there was nonappearance and allegations being of very minor nature, proceedings should be dropped, particularly when he is a Government employee. As observed by apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. : AIR 1992 SC 1701, fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit 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. But 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 exercise, Court would consider not only period of delay but the reasons therefore. 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 unjustifiable long period. In Mungroo v. R, (1992) LRC (Const 591:, (1991) 1 WIR 1351, Lord Templeman expressed the following view:

(3.) ARTICLE 21 of the Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or property except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. Right to speedy trial is not expressly guaranteed under the Constitution as a right in India but fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates such right in the accused. As observed by apex Court in A.R. Antulay's case (supra), speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice, and there can be no doubt that delay in trial itself constitutes denial of justice. It cannot however, be lost sight of that it is usually the accused who is interested in delaying the proceedings as it often pointed out "delay is a known defence tactics." But such prosecution should not be allowed to become persecution. Apex Court refused to fix any time -limit for trial of offence and observed that it is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time limit for trial of offences any such rule is bound to be qualified one. While determining whether undue delay has occurred (resulting in violation of Right to Speedy Trial) one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work -load of the Court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on -what is called, the systemic delays.