LexMOTI LAL SARAF versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASMIR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. MOTi LAL SARAF A v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASMIR AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 (S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21-Right to speedy tria/- Cognizance of offence taken on charge sheet filed on same facts on which accused was previously discharged twice over for want of sanction for C prosecution-Dismissal of petition for quashing of proceedings by High Court-Correctness of-Held Not a single witness was examined by prosecution for over a quarter century without there being any lapse on behalf of accused-Taking of available legal remedies by accused to protect his interests could not be a ground to harass and humiliate him for such a long period-Criminal proceedings quashed as their further continuation D was total abuse of process of /aw-Right to speedy trial was available through all stages viz. investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result front impermissible and avoidable delay from time of commission of offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted E The appellant was working as a Manager with the respondent. He was arrested on the allegation that he had received illegal gratification and a charge sheet was filed against him before the Trial Court. On challenge by appellant, these proceedings were quashed by High Court on the ground that sanction for his prosecution was given by incompetent person. The appellant, F however, was dismissed from service in the departmental proceedings initiated against him, and thereafter respondents again filed a charge sheet against him on the same set of facts on the ground that he was no more in service and sanction for prosecution was not required. However, trial Judge held that sanction was sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence and discharged the appellant. This order of the trial court was not challenged by respondent G and it became final and binding between the parties. Thereafter, without challenging the validity of this order of discharge, respondent again filed a charge sheet before trial court Appellant again came under judicial restraint and was asked to produce sureties for his presence in the Court. Appellant 903 H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A petitioned the High Court for quashing of these proceedings. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that Iii it was a clear case of abuse of process of law !iii it was the right of every citizen to seek speedy trial and continuation offurther proceedings against him was contrary to the basic spirit of Article B 21 of the Constitution. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution in the last twenty six years without there being any lapse on behalf of the C appellant 1909-EJ 1.2. The appellant, of course, had taken the legal remedy available to him to protect his interests against illegal proceedings initiated against him by the respondents, but that by itself could not be a ground to harass and D humiliate the appellant for more than a quarter century. (909-E, Fl 1.3. Permitting the State to continue with the prosecution and trial any further would be total abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the criminal proceedings are quashed.1917-A-Bl 2. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential E part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision ·so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and F avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality can be averted. f915-G-H; 916-AI P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 120021 4 SCC 578 and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1199413 SCC 569, followed G Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1199211 SCC 225, Hussainara Khatoon (/) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 119801 1 SCC 81, Rakesh Saxena v. State through C.B.I .. 119861 Supp; SCC 505, Srinivas Gopal v. Union ( Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (19881 4 SCC 36, T. J. Stephen v. Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd., [19881 Supp. SCC 458 and Machander v. State of H Hyderabad, 119551
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.