KAJOD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPEEDY investigation and trial 'is the core of criminal justice. Constitutional mandate of speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is more essential in a case where the accused is in jail. Public interest also demands that criminal trials should be swift and sure; that the guilty shoueld be punished while events are still fresh in the public mind and innocent should be absolved as early as possible. In a series of cases, the Apex Court of the country and this Court have said agaien and again that reasonable speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) GENERAL Rules (Criminal) 1979 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also contain provisions for disposal of criminal trials with the greatest possible expedition. Rule 42 of GENERAL Rules (Criminal) 1979 provides that sessions cases should be disposed of with the greatest possible expedition. Then Rule-43 states that "once a sessions trial is opened the Sessions Judge shall see that it is disposed of in the same session and not adjourned to next session. The sessions cases shall be taken up day to day untill all the witnesses in attendance have been examined and discharged. The Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and if necessary the Superintendent of Police of the district may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. A sessions trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. "

(3.) A report was obtained from the trial Court about progress of the case and reasons for delay in trial. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi vide his communication dated November 11,1994, has intimated to this court that charges were read over to the accused on March 4,1993 and thereafter, statements of Dr. Navin Vijay and Dr. Suresh Chand Sharma were recorded on 19. 3. 94 (i. e. after 12 months of framing charge ). Then, statement of Ram Bharose was recorded on 26. 8. 94 (i. e. after other 6 months ). On September 27,1994 statement of Bablu and on 28. 9. 94 statement of Surendra Kumar were recorded and since then no progress in trial has been made. However, the order sheets, copies of which have been filed before me, show that charges were read over to all accused except one on 4. 3. 93, as he was not present on that day. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time i. e. on 23. 3. 93, 8. 4. 93,27. 4. 93,30. 5. 93,11. 6. 93,15. 7. 93,30. 8. 93,1. 12. 93,and lastly on 7. 12. 93. On this date, charges were read over to the remaining accused, meaning thereby that from 4. 3. 93 to 7. 12. 93 i. e. 9 months or so, no effective hearing took place and no effective steps were taken to procure the attendance of the remaining accused to whom the charge was not read over earlier. On 7. 12. 93 the next date was fixed as 14. 1. 94 for recording prosecution evidence. On this date no witness was present. On the next date also, no effective hearing took place and the case was adjourned to 4. 3. 94. On this date, the statements of Dr. Navin Vijay and Dr. Suresh Chand Sharma were recorded. Then on next date i. e. 15. 4. 94, no prosecution witness was present. Again on the next date, no witness was present. Next witness came to be examined on 26. 8. 94. Then, one witness was examined on 27. 9. 94 and one witness was examined on 28. 9. 94. All these proceedings are indicative, without further comments of the fact that no effective steps were taken by the trial court, as well as by the Prosecuting agency to procure the attendance of the witnesses. If the summons were not issued, the responsibility should have been fixed on the erring clerk or the officer. If the orders of the court were not complied with by any Police Officer in getting summons or warrants served upon the witnesses, the Court is not powerless. Under Section 23 of the Police Act, every Police Officer is duty bound to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any Competent Authority/court. Section 29 provides penalty for police officer, who is guilty of any violation of his duty or wilful breach of negligence.