SANJAI TIWARI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 16-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
SANJAI TIWARI
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2020)
DECEMBER 16, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 – Application under – Filed by an advocate claiming to
be social activist – Seeking direction to expedite and conclude a
criminal case u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC and
s. 13(1) r/w. s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court
allowed the petition directing the Court concerned to expedite the
proceedings – Appeal to Supreme Court by the accused – Held:
High Court has power to direct the trial court to expedite the criminal
trial – Criminal trial in respect of offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act have to be conducted and concluded at the earliest
– But the plea to expedite the proceedings cannot be raised by third
party in the garb of Public Interest Litigation – Thus the applicant
(advocate) had no locus to file the application – Therefore, the
application u/s. 482 is dismissed – However, it will be open for the
trial court to expedite the trial.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Criminal trial where offences involved are under
the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be conducted and
concluded at the earliest, since the offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act are offences which affect not only the accused
but the entire society and administration. The High Court in
appropriate cases can very well under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in
any other proceeding can always direct trial court to expedite
the criminal trial and issue such order as may be necessary.
[Para 11][970-F-G]
2.1 In the present case, the proceeding initiated by
respondent No.2 does not appear to be a bona fide. Respondent
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 966
966
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
967
No.2 is in no way connected with initiation of criminal proceeding
against the appellant. Respondent No.2 in his application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has described himself as a social activist and
an Advocate. An application by a person who is in no way
connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by the High
Court. A criminal trial of an accused is conducted in accordance
with procedure as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is the obligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that
all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can
be delivered to the accused if found guilty. The present is not a
case where prosecution or even the employer of the accused
have filed an application either before the trial court or in any
other court seeking direction as prayed by respondent No.2 in
his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  It is for the parties in
the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the
proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the
proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of Public
Interest Litigants.[Paras 11 and 14][970-H; 971-A-C; 973-A]
2.2 Normally no exception can be taken to the order of the
High Court directing the trial court to expedite the criminal trial
but in the present case the fact is that proceedings have been
initiated by respondent No.2 who was not concerned with the
proceedings in any manner and respondent No.2 has no locus to
file the application which was not clearly maintainable. Therefore,
the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is dismissed. [Paras 15 and 16][973-C-D]
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1993) 1
SCC 756 – relied on.
3. However, it will be open for the trial court to expedite
the criminal trial, the offences being the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to any order passed
by the High Court in pending proceedings. [Para 16][973-E]
Case Law Reference
(1993) 1 SCC 756
relied on
Para 12
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
869 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 13465 of 2020.
Sharan Thakur, AAG, Ajit Sharma, Rohit K. Singh, Ajay Kumar
Prajapati, Ms. Sneha Ravi Iyer, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 09.09.2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.