LexABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY ETC. ETC. versus R.S. NAYAK AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY ETC. ETC. V. ~.S. NAYAK AND ANR. ETC. ETC. DE~MBER 10, 1991 [KN. SINGH, C.J., P.B. SA WANT, N.M. KASLIWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND GN. RAY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 21-Right to speedy trial-Whether part of fair.just and reason- able procedure implicit in_ Article 21-Whether comprehensive of investiga- tion, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial-Whether any outer limit could be prescribed for conclusion of the proceedingr-Delay-Prosecution to justlfY and explain-Failure of accused to demand or insist upon speedy trial- Whether could result in denial-:-Relief-To be sought first in the lligh Court--- Cqurt to dispose on priority basis instead of staying the proceedings. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B. c D Sections 309 and 482-Right of the a~cused to speedy trial-111ordinate delay in conclusion of proceedingr-Discretion of Court to quash proceedings having regard to .attendant circumstances and relevant facts-Guidelines is- sued. · .,. E The petitioner in the first of the two Writ Petitions, was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The First Respondent has been iaking steps to file criminal complaint against the petitioner_ since 1981 for misuse of office and various offences including corruption charges. Initially he was F not successful for want of sanction from the Governor. After obtaining the · required sanction,from the Governor, the Respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judge created under the Criminal Law Amend- ment Act, 1952, against the petitioner and some others. The main allega- tion was that the petitioner misused his office for collecting funds for certain tr~sts. The Special Judge took cognizance of the complaint a11d G issued process. The petitioner appeared before the Special Judge and rai~ed objections, as regards the jurisdiction of the Speeial Judge. Sine<: the Special Judge overruled the objections, the petitioner.approached th .. High Court by way of Criminal Revision. In the meantime the State Goyernment issued a notification designating a Special Judge to try the , said case. The Criminal Revision was dismissed. : l 325 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R. A Before the Speciai Judge, the petitioner raised fresh objections that the charges against him were groundless and also because he was an M.L.A. the taking of cognizance without the sanction of the Governor was not valid. He also prayed_ for postponing the hearing. The Special Judge took the view that without the sanction of the Governor, the case C(>uld not go on and accordingly he discharged the accused. The First Respondent B then approached this Court. This Court took the view that M.L.A. was not a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 21 IPC and so the question of sanction did not arise. in this view of the matter, it set aside the order of the Special Judge and directed that the trial should proceed from the stage at which C the petitioner was discharged. The case was transferred- to High Court. D E F In the· connected appeal preferred by the petitioner, this Court confirmed the view that cognizance could be·taken even on private com- plaint. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Special case was assigned to a Judge of the High Court. The petitioner raised an objection that the. case can be tried only by a Special Judge appointed by· the Government under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and that a High Court Judge had no jurisdiction to try such a case. This and other related objections were rejected by the High Court Judge. The petitioner ~ppealed against the said order and this Court dismissed the same. , ~ \ · Later, the proceedings were'.transferred to another Judge of the High Court; who framed 21 charges but declined to frame charges under 22· ether heads proposed by the Respondent. The First Respondent ap- proached this Cmir"t against the said order in so far as -it declined to frame terfain charges. This was allowed by thiS Court. Thereafter, thi: proceed- ings were transferred to another Judge of the High Court who framed as mariy as 79 charges and proceeded with the trial. A number of witnesses were ·examined.· At that stage the petitioner approached this Court ques- tioniDg the eonstitutfonal validity of Settion 197 Cr. P.C. Two SLPs were G also filed by the petitioner, against the order framing charges and another order. ·on 29.4.88, this· Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.