LexSTATE THROUGH CBI versus DR. NARAYAN WARMAN NERUKAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE THROUGH CBI v. DR. NARAYAN WARMAN NERUKAR AND ANR. AUGUST 26, 2002 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] c Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 482: Quashing of Criminal proceedings on the ground of delay in proceedings -Justification of-Held, quashing of proceedings without considering whether the prolongation was on account of delaying tactics adopted by accused, number of witnesses, volume of documents to be exhibited, nature and D complexity of the offence under investigation, would not be justified-Sections 309, 311 and 258-Constitution of India, 195~Article 21. Practice and procedure: Applicability of a particular provision-Determination of by High court- Held, normally this aspect is left to be decided by trial court-High Court can E come to conclusion about the provisions applicable to the facts in its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. where factual aspects and.the law applicable are clear-Complex nature of offence should be deterrent to the Courts for going into the question- F Respondent No.I was tried for offences u/ss. 3 and 5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and S.120-B IPC. He approached High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings on account of delay in conclusion of the proceedings by the Trial Court. High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that there was G unnecessary delay in the proceedings. It held that respondent's right to speedy trial had been infringed and that about 100 witnesses spread all over India were to be examined was not a relevant gr~und to justify the delay. It also held that maximum sentence for the alleged offence would be 3 years. H In appeal to this Court appellant-State contended that it is not a 676 ST ATE THROUGH CBI v. DR. NARA YAN WARMAN NERUKAR 677 rule of universal application that whenever there is delay, whatever he A the justification for the same, the proceedings are to be quashed; that there was no material before the High Court to come to the conclusion that the maximum sentence for the offences was 3 years and not IS years. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the ~rt B HELD: I. While considering the question of delay court has a duty to see whether the prolongation was on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the accused and other relevant aspects which contributed to the delay. Number of witnesses examined, volume of documents likely to C be exhibited, nature and complexity of the offence which is under investigation or adjudication are some of the relevant factors. There can be no empirical formula of universal application in such matters. Each case has to be judged in its own background and special features if any. No generalization is possible and should be done. It bas also to be borne in mind that criminal courts exercise available powers such as those under D Sections 309, 311 and 258 Cr.P.C. to effectuate right to speedy trial. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court while quashing the proceedings. On that score the judgment under challenge is vitiated. [681-E, F, G, HJ P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, JT 2002 ( 4) SC 92, E followed. "Common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors., (199614 SCC 33; "Common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 775; Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., [1992] I SCC 225 ; Raj F Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, JT (1999) 7 SC 317 and Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State ofBihar, JT (1999) 7 SC 317, referred to. 2. While dealing with the question as to the proper provision applicable to the case, the High Court has come to a definite finding about G maximum sentence. Normally, these aspects are to be left to be decided by the trial court. It is correct that the court can, in a given case, where factual aspects and the law applicable are clear, come to the conclusion about the provision applicable to the facts. But for coming to such conclusion the factual position must be clear and no doubt should exist about the applicability of a particular provision to the factual scenario. H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A The complex nature of the offence should be deterrent to the courts while goina into the question of applicability of a provision. 1681-H; 682-A-BJ ··3. The judament of the High Court is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.