RANJAN DWIVEDI versus C.B.I., THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 17-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 329 
RANJAN DWIVEDI 
v. 
C.8.1., THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 of 2011etc.) 
AUGUST 17, 2012. 
(H. L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
A 
B 
Art. 21 - Speedy trial - Samastipur bomb-blast - 37 years c 
delay in trial - Held: The Constitution does not expressly 
declare the right to speedy trial as a fundamental right -
However, 'reasonably' expeditious trial has been held an 
integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and 
liberty enshrined in Art. 21 - Delay, which occasioned by 0 
action or inaction of the prosecution is one of the main factors 
which will be taken note by the courts while interjecting a 
criminal trial - However, unintentional and unavoidable delays 
or administrative factors over which prosecution has no control 
may be a good cause for failure to complete the trial within a 
reasonable time - Such delay cannot be violative of accused's 
E 
right to a speedy trial and needs to be excluded while deciding 
whether there is unreasonable and unexplained delay -
Presumptive prejudice is not an alone dispositive of speedy 
trial claim and must be balanced against other factors - In the 
instant case, the delay is occasional by exceptional F 
circumstances - In view of the long adjournments sought by 
the accused persons they cannot take advantage or the 
benefit of the right of speedy trial by causing the delay and 
then use that delay in order to assert their rights. 
CRIMINAL TRIAL: 
Delay in completion of trial - Samastipur bomb-blast - 37 
years delay in completion of trial - Held: Prescribing a time 
G 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
limit for the trial court to terminate the proceedings or, at the 
end thereof, to acquit or discharge the accused in all cases 
will amount to legislation, which cannot be done by judicial 
directives within the arena of judicial law making power 
available to constitutional courts however liberally the courts 
B 
may interpret Arts. 21, 32, 141 and 142 - It is for the criminal 
court to exercise powers u/ss 258, 309 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. 
to effectuate the right to a speedy trial - In the instant case, 
credit should be given to the judicial officers who have taken 
care to see that the trial is completed at the earliest, and have 
C painstakingly suffered with all the dilatory tactics adopted by 
the accused in dragging on with the proceedings for nearly 
thirty seven years - The system has done its best, but, has 
not achieved the expected result and the instant case, 
certainly, will not fit into the category of cases of systemic 
D failure - The trial judge is directed to take up the case on day 
to day basis and conclude the proceedings as early as 
possible, without granting unnecessary and unwarranted 
adjournments - Judiciary - Conducting of trial - Appreciated -
Judicial discipline - Precedent - Administration of justice -
E Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 258, 309 and 311 -
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 21,32, 141and142. 
The instant writ petitions were filed by two of the 
accused involved in the assassination of the then 
F 
Railway Minister in the Samastipur bomb-blast which 
took place on 2.1.1975. They prayed for quashing of 
charges and the trial on the ground of more than 37 years 
delay in completion of the trial. 
G 
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: (Per H.L. Dattu, J) 
1.1 In Abdul Rehman Antulay, Kartar Singh and P. 
Ramchandra Rao*, this Court has laid down guidelines 
as regards the right to speedy trial. The Constitution of 
H 
India does not expressly declare the right to speedy trial 
RANJAN DWIVEDI v. C.B.I., THROUGH THE 
331 
DIRECTOR GENERAL 
as a fundamental right. However, in Hussainara A 
Khatoon's case a speedy trial has been held to be implicit 
in the broad sweep and content of Art. 21 of the 
Constitution. Subsequently, in a series of judgments, this 
Court has held that 'reasonably' expeditious trial is an 
integral and essential part of the Fundamental Right to 
B 
Life and Liberty enshrined in Art. 21. [para 12-15 and 17] 
[342-G-H; 352-A-B] 
*Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1991 (3) Suppl. 
SCR 325 = (1992) 1 SCC 225, Kartar Singh v. State of c 
Punjab, 1994 (2) SCR 375 = (1994) 3 sec 569; P. 
Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578; 
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar, 
Patna 1979 (3) SCR 169 =AIR 1979 SC 1360; Vakil Prasad 
Singh v. Stat

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