LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus IKBAL HUSSEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. IKBAL HUSSEN SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Criminal trial-Pending for six years-Trial Court closing evidence and acquitting accused in view of decision in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1998) 7 SCC 507-High Court upholding same-On appeal, Held: Decision in Constitution Bench in A.R. AntulaY.'s case [1992) 1 SCC 225 continues to hold the field and bars of limitation introduced in Common Cause (1) and Common Cause (JJ) and Raj Deo Sharma (1) and Raj Deo Sharma (Il) cannot be sustained as they were rendered by bench of two or three Judges and run counter to the view expressed in A. R. Antulay's case. A B c Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 309-Trial pending for D long period-Trial Court directed to take up the matter on day to day basis keeping in view mandate or Section 309. Respondents were tried for alleged commission of various offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860. As their trial had continued for six years, trial court closed the evidence and acquitted the accused in the light of decision of this Court in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1998) 7 SCC 507. High Court upheld the decision of trial court, observing that the trial could not be continued indefinitely. Hence the present appeal by State. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The decision of the High Court affirming the acquittal E F of respondent cannot be maintained. Judgment of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The trial before the trial court shall be revived. G [195-H; 196-A) l.2 The correctness of the decisions in two Raj Deo Sharma 's cases i.e. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1998) 7 SCC 507 and (1997] 7 SCC 604 and that of 'Common Cause' a Registered Society v. Union of India, [199616 189 H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. · A sec 775 and [1996) 4 sec 33 was considered by seven judge Bench in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578. It was held that the dictum of the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay 's case [1992] 1 SCC 225 continues to hold the_ field and bars of limitation introduced in Common Cause (I) and Common Cause (II) and Raj Deo Sharma (I) and B Raj Deo Sharma (II) cannot be sustained as these decisions were rendered by two or three Hon'ble Judges and run counter to the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay 's case. [191-C; 193-B] c D P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 and A.R. Antulay's case [1992) 1 SCC 225, followed. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507; Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1997] 7 SCC 604; '.Common Cause' a Registered Society v. Union of India, [1996) 6 SCC 775 and 'Common Cause' a Registered Society v. Union of India, [1996) 4 SCC 33, referred to~ 2. Since the trial is pending for a considerable period of time, it would be appropriate for the concerned court to take up the matter on • day to day basis, keeping in view the mandate of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [196-A, B] E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2002 of the Rajasthan High. Court in S.B. Crl. A. No. 36 of 2002. F Ms. Madhurima Tatia and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. Ms. K. Saradar Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. : State of Rajasthan questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur holding that the trial against the respondent for alleged commission ofoffences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), could not be continued indefinitely. H The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, I- " ' STATE v. IKBAL HlJSSEN [PASAYAT,J.] 191 Rajasthan directed acquittal of the respondent who was facing trial for alleged A commission of aforesaid offences. The alleged incident took place on 28th March, 1995. The trial court closed the evidence in the light of the decision of this Court in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1998] 7 SCC 507. The High Court as noted above, observed that the trial cannot proceed B indefinitely and the trial had not come to an end for a period of six years, and, therefore, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in closing the evidence and direct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.