LexRAJ DEO SHARMA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJ DEO SHARMA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 B (K.T. THOMAS, M. SRINIVASAN AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21-Right to speedy trial-Enforce- ment of-Delay in conduct of trial-Power of Court to close prosecution evidence-Directions issued by Supreme Court in Rajdeo Sharma I cas~Peti- C tion for clarification/modification of the said directions by C.B.l.-Held, no outer time limit for conclusion of trial fu:ed-1he period provided for con- clusion of prosecution evidence is not unexceptional-Following period can be excluded from the period provided for completion of prosecution evidence.~ (i) Period of pendency of appeal or revision filed against interim D orders; (ii) period of absence of presiding officer in a trial court; (iii) three months period if the office of public prosecutor falls vacant due to any reason other than expiry of office; (iv) an additional period of one year for cases pending on the date of main judgment; (v) the suspended period of main judgment till the date of present judgment-Courts can invoke the powers E under S.311 of the Code even after the prosecution case is closed in com- pliance with the direction in main judgment-Provisions of S.309 of Code to be strictly followed by trial courtS--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-ss.309 and 311. In Rajdeo Sharma I case, this Court issued certain directions for F effective enforcement of right to speedy trial floWing from Article 21 of the Constitution. In the said judgment, the Court inter alia held for closing of prosecution evidence on completion of 2 years in cases for offences punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding 7 years and on completion of 3 years in cases of offences punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years. The present petition was filed by Central G Bureau of Investigation for clarification/modification of the said direc- tions. Disposing of the petition, the Court H HELD : PER THOMAS, !. 124 RAJ DEO SHARMAv. STATE 125 1. In Rajdeo Shanna I case, the Court has not fixed an outer time A limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings in a case. The whole idea was to speed up the trial in criminal cases to prevent the prosecution from becoming a persecution of the person arrayed in a criminal trial. No trial can be allowed to prolong indefinitely due to the lethargy of the prosecuting agency or the state machinery and that is the raison d'etre in prescribing the time frame within which prosecution evidence must be closed. [131-A; DJ A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, [1992] 1 SCC 225 and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994J 3 SCC 569, followed. Raj Deo Shanna I v. State of Bihar, [1998J 7 SCC 507, explained and relied on. 2.1. The different periods suggested by this Court for closing prosecu- B c tion evidence in different categories of cases are not unexceptional. The judgment has clearly precluded that ifthe inability for completing prosecu- D tion evidence was attributable to the conduct of the accused, the Court is not obliged to close the prosecution evidence at all. If the trial gets . postponed on account of pendency of any appeal or revision filed against any interim order even though there was no order of stay it is open to the trial court to reckon that period also. [131-E; 132-C] 2.2. Absence of presiding officer in a trial court (either on account of the physical disability or due to the delay in taking over the charge of the · court is a valid cause which disables the prosecution from adducing evidence. Consequently, such time can also be excluded by the court from the period prescribed for completing prosecution evidence. [132-G; HJ E F 2.3. If the tenure of office of a particular person as public prosecutor expires he shall continue to hold office and function as public prosecutor until his successor takes charge from him. If the office of a public prosecutor falls vacant on account of any other reason, a period of 3 months shall be excluded from the periods fixed under directions for ena- G bling the State Government to appoint a public prosecutor to that office. However, the State has to see that there is no unnecessary delay in appoint- ing a public prosecutor to the existing vacancy. The State cannot take, advantage of its own inaction. [133-A; Bl 2.4. An additional period of one year can be claimed by the prosecu- H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A tion in respect of pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.