Lex"COMMON CAUSE", A REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B "COMMON CAUSE", A REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 28, 1996 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21 C Right to lif,,_Speedy llial-Earlier judgment* of Supreme Cowt regard- ing discharge or acquittal of undemial prisoners-Modification and clarifica- tion of earlier judgment-Held, accused concemed are not entitled to eam any discharge or acquittal as per paragraphs 2(a) to 2(f) of earlier judgment if it is demonstrated that the accused concemed seek to take advantage of their wrong or any other action of their own resulting in protraction of trials D against them-Phrase "pending of tlials" as employed in paragraphs from 1 (a) to 1 ( c) and the phrase 'non-commencement of trial' as employed in para- graphs from 2(b) to 2(f) explained-Additions made in the list of offences to which directions contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of earlier judgment shall not apply. E F *Common Cause, A registered Society v. Union of India, [1996] 4 SCC 33, referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986. (Under Article 32 of the. Constitution of India.) H.D. Shourie, Petitioner-in-Person. Guntur Prabhakar, R.B. Misra, B.B. Singh, (J.R. Das for Sinha & G Das, Anip Sachthey, ·A.s. Bhasme, S.K. Agnihotri, Pravir Choudhary, R. Sasiprabhu, P.R .. Seetharaman, M. Veerappa, Raj Kumar Mehta, G.K. Bansal, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Ashok Mathur, S.K. Nandy, Ms. Indu Mal- hotra, Naresh K. Sharma, Krishnamurthi Swami, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Kailash Vasdev, Ms. S. Janani, Gopal Singh, Ms. H. Wahi, D.N. Mukherjee, Shreepal Singh, D.M. Nargolkar and D.N. Mukherjee for H the Respondents. 296 COMMON CAUSE A REGD. SOCY. v. U.0.1. 297 The following Order of the Court was delivered : We have heard learned counsel appearing for the concerned parties in the present proceedings. Having given our anxious consideration to their contentions, we deem it fit to clarify/modify our judgment dated 1st May 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986 as under : I. The time limit mentioned regarding the pendency of criminal cases in patagraphs from 2( a) to 2(!) of our judgment shall not apply to cases wherein such pendency of the criminal proceed- ings is wholly or partly attributable to the dilatory tactics adopted A B by the concerned accused or on account of any other action of C the accused which results in prolonging the trial. In other words it should be shown that the criminal proceedings have remained pending for the requisite period mentioned in the aforesaid clauses of paragraph 2 despite full cooperation by the concerned accused to get these proceedings disposed of the delay in the disposal of these cases is not at all attributable to the concerned D accused, nor such delay is caused on account of such accused getting stay of criminal proceedings from higher courts. Accused concerned are not entitled to earn any discharge or acquittal as per paragraphs 2(a) to 2(!) of our judgment if it is demonstrated that the accused concerned seek to take advantage of their own E wrong or any other action of their own resulting in protraction of trials against them. II. The phrase 'pendency of trials' as employed in paragraphs from l(a) to l(c) and the phrase 'non-commencement of trial' as employed in paragraphs from 2(b) to 2(!) shall be construed as F under: (i) In cases df trials before Sessions Court the trial shall be treated to have commenced when charges are framed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the G concerned cases. (ii) In cases of trials of warrant cases by magistrates if the cases are instituted upon police reports the trials shall be treated to have commended when charges are framed under Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while in trials of warrant H A B c E F G H 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19%] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. cases by magistrates when cases are instituted otherwise than on police report such trials shall be treated to have commended when charges are framed against the concerned accused under Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (iii) In cases of trials of summons cases by magistrates the trials would be considered to have commended when the accused who appear or are brought before the magistrate are asked under Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. ID. In paragr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.