P. RAMA CHANDRA RAO versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 16-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. RAMA CHANDRA RAO 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
APRIL I 6, 2002 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, CJ. SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, R.C. 
LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, RUMA PAL 
AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21-Right to speedy trial-Criminal 
Proceedings-Limitation bar provided by judgment of smaller Benches of 
Supreme Court-Held, such bar contrary to law laid down by larger Bench 
in Antulay's case-Limitation bars not good law, since the same would amount 
to impermissible legislation and contrary to law of precedent-To effectuate 
the right to speedy trial, powers under Sections 309, 311, 258 and 482 of 
D Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution could· 
be exercised-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 309, 311, 258 
and 482. 
Doctrines: 
E 
Doctrine of precedent-Pronouncements by smaller Benches contrary 
F 
to law laid down by larger Bench-Smaller Bench is bound by view expressed 
by larger Bench. 
Judicial Review: 
Held, is restricted to declaring and interpreting law and removing obvious 
1.:icunae and filling the gaps-Not to entrench upon the field of legislation 
which is meant for legislature-Constitution of India, ...J950-Articles 32, 21, 
141, 142-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Chapter XXXVl 
G 
In Common Cause v. Union of India, [1996) 4 SCC 33, (Common Cause 
~ I); Common Cause v. Union of India, [1996) 6 SCC 775 (Common Cause 11); 
Rajdev Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1998) 7 SCC (Raj Dev Sharma I); Raj Dev 
Sharma II v. State of Bihar, [1999) 7 SCC 604 (Raj Dev Sharma II), the Court 
had issued direction fixing outer time limits for conclusion of certain nature 
of criminal proceedings. 
H 
60 
)__ 
r. 
-
--
P. RAMA CHANDRA RAO v. STA TE OF KARNAT AKA 
61 
In the instant appeals, accused facing corruption charges were acquitted A 
by special courts in terms of directions in Raj Dev Sharma I case as there was 
failure of commencement of trial despite lapse of two years from the date of 
framing of the charges. The appeals of the State against the acquittal were 
allowed by High Court without issuing notice to the respective accused. 
In appeal to this Court, the question for consideration arose as to B 
whether earlier decisions of this Court, in Common Cause I. Common Cause 
l/, Ra.i Dev Sharma I Raj Dev Sharma II cases would apply to prosecution 
" 
under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other economic offences. The 
case was, therefore, referred to a Constitution Bench. 
During the hearing, the Constitution Bench was of the opinion that the C 
directions in the Common Cause cases and Raj Dev Sharma cases ran counter 
to Constitution Bench directions in A.R. Antulay 's case, which had laid down 
the law that an outer time limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings 
should not be drawn or prescribed. Since A.R Antu/ay's case was decided by 
Bench of 5 Judges the instant case was referred to seven Judges Bench. 
D 
The question for consideration therein was whether a Court in its zeal 
to protect the right to speedy trial of an accused, can devise and almost enact 
such bars oflimitation though the legislature and the statutes have not choosen 
to do so. 
Answering the question and allowing the appeals, the Court. 
HELD : (Per Lahot( J for himself S.P. Bharucha, CJ!, Quadri, Hegde, 
Ruma Pal and Pasayat, JJ) 
E 
1.1. It is neither advisable or feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw F 
or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The 
time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in 
Common Cause (/), Raj Deo Sharma(/) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have 
been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal Courts are 
not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of 
lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause Case G 
(I), Raj Deo Sharma Cases (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time 
J. 
prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or 
proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their 
judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and 
determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A out in A.R. Antulay 's case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have 
become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. 
Such time-l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.