RAJ DEO SHARMA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 08-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS, M. SRINIVASAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJ DEO SHARMA 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
.... 
OCTOBER 8, 1998 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 21. 
Right to speedy trial-FIR lodged thirteen long years ago-Prosecution 
c examined three witnesses out of forty witnesses-Petition for quashing entire 
prosecution including FIR-Rejected-On appeal, held, right to speedy trial 
flows from Article 21 and it encompasses the stage right from the date of 
registration of FIR and onwards-Proposition laid down in A.R. Antulay's 
case supplemented by additional directions-Prevention of Corruption Act, 
D 1947 : Section 5(2) read with Section 5(/)(e). 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 309(1)-Power of Magistrate 
to close the prosecution-Held, Magistrate can close the prosecution if 
witnesses are not produced in spite of repeated opportunities-Reasons to 
be recorded for adjourning the case beyond a day. 
E 
Appellant was prosecuted on 2.11.1982 for an offence under section 
5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. A charge-sheet was 
submitted on 30.8.1985 by the C.B.I and the Special Judge, CBI took 
cognizance of offences and issued summons for appearance. On 24.4.1987, 
appellant appeared before the Court and obtained bail. The charges were 
F framed by the Special Judge on 4.3.1993. Three witnesses out of forty 
witnesses were examined by the prosecution till 1.6.1995. The appellant filed 
a writ petition praying inter alia for quashing the entire prosecution including 
FIR on the ground that more than thirteen years had elapsed since the 
institution of FIR, and his right for speedy trial was violated. High Court 
G dismissed the said petition holding that delay was due to the fact that there 
was only one Special Court of CBI and large number of cases were pending 
before it. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant has 
' 
preferred the present appeal. 
[ 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the High Court, 
H this Court 
130 
-
R.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF BIHAR 
Bl 
HELD: 1. The legal position adumbrated by this Court inA.R Antu/ay's A 
case* that the right to speedy trial flows from Article 21 and it encompasses 
the stages right from the date of registration of the FIR and onwards remains 
unaltered. (136-H; 140-F] 
*Abdul Rehamn Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak, (1992] 1 SCC 225, 
followed. 
B 
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure is t:omprehensive enough to enable 
the Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is unable to 
produce its witnesses inspite of repeated opportunities. Section 309(1) Cr.P.C. 
enjoins expeditious holding of the proceedings and continuous examination 
of witnesses from day to day.1:he section also provides for recording reasons C 
for adjourning the case beyond the following day. [141-A] 
3. In view of large pend ency of the cases before the Special Court it 
is necessary to lay down additional guidelines. Thus the propositions laid 
down by the Constitution Bench in Antulay 's is supplemented with the following 
directions : (141-B) 
D 
1. 
2. 
3. 
In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with 
imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven year, whether the 
accused is in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution 
evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of E 
recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether 
the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the 
said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided 
by law for the trial of the case; (141-C] 
In such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail F 
for a period of not less than one half of the maximum period of 
punishment prescribed for the offence, the trial court shall release 
the accused on bail forthwith on such conditions as it deems fit. 
(141-D] 
If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a G 
period exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or 
not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion 
of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused 
on the charges framed, whether the prosecution has examined all 
the witnesses or not within the said period and the Court can 
proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case, H 
132 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
unless for very exceptional reasons to be recorded and in interest 
of justice the Court consider
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.