Hasty Justice Not Alternative To Delayed Justice, Speedy Trial Should Not Be At The Cost Of Discouraging The Defence: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that though the legal principle of justice delayed is justice denied is well established, however, hasty justice is not preferred over delayed justice. Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was dealing with the plea of a man seeking transfer of the trial against him. The petitioner apprehended that his case would not be considered fairly after the...
The Madras High Court recently observed that though the legal principle of justice delayed is justice denied is well established, however, hasty justice is not preferred over delayed justice.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was dealing with the plea of a man seeking transfer of the trial against him. The petitioner apprehended that his case would not be considered fairly after the trial judge refused to postpone the trial in light of the petitioner's medical condition.
The court remarked that while eliminating the delay in the disposal of criminal cases, due care needs to be taken to prevent undue speed and haste as the same would result in unfair play. The court added that the case of the defence should not be discouraged while attempting to expedite criminal trials.
“There is no doubt about the theorem that justice delayed is justice denied. By the same token, hasty justice is not a preferred alternative to delayed justice. While an attempt to expedite the processing of criminal cases need to be appreciated, it should be borne in mind that it should not be at the cost of discouraging the defence to putforth their case. Therefore, while considering the necessity of elimination of delay in the disposal of criminal cases, due care needs to be exercised to prevent undue speed or haste in the matter of disposal, because it would result into unfair play,” the court said.
The petitioner, Paramasivan was facing trial for offenses under Section 109 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The allegation against Paramasivan was that he had possessed disproportionate assets to the tune of 80.48% disproportionate to his known sources of income while he was serving as the Director (Audit), AGM-II in the office of the Director General of Audit, Control Expenditure.
During the trial, Sadasivan was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer of the esophagus for which he was admitted in the Hospital and underwent surgery and later chemotherapy. Though adjournments were sought on his behalf, the trial proceeded and evidence was recorded. Later when a petition was filed under Section 309 CrPC seeking adjournment of trial, the same was dismissed by the trial court after which the present petition was filed.
After perusing the documents and the report submitted by the trial judge, the court noted that the trial judge was apprised of the illness but had proceeded with the trial on the embargo in the legal provisions regarding the postponement of the trial.
The court noted that though the legal provision put a check on unnecessary postponement, it did not completely bar the same and postponement was permitted by recording reasons if found to be beyond the control of the party seeking adjournment. The court noted that the trial judge was guided by the sole intention of speedy trial and had overlooked the genuineness of Sadasivan's plea. The court added that a balanced view needed to be taken after analysing the scope of speedy trial and the intention of the party which sought for postponement.
Thus, considering the balance of convenience, the court opined that it would be proper to transfer the trial and ordered accordingly.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.Sivananthan assisted by Ms.M.Anitha
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Case Title: Dr A Paramasivan v State
Case No: Criminal Original Petition No.24531 of 2023