Watchful, Diligent Judge Can Protect Right To Speedy Trial: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Trial In Fraud Case To Be Concluded In 2 Yrs

A watchful and diligent Judge can prove to be a protector of right to speedy right within any guidelines the Punjab & Haryana High Court said while directing a trial court to conclude the trial within 2 years in a fraud case.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down the guidelines in Abdul Rehman Antulay case, adequately took care of right to speedy trial and this Court is always guided by the said propositions, as, which are also binding precedents. The criminal courts should exercise their available powers such as those under Section 309, 311 and 258 of Cr.P.C. to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent Judge can prove to be a protector of such rights within any guidelines."

The Court was hearing plea under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial in a time bound manner.

Counsel for the petitioner Hero Cycles Ltd., contended that initially a complaint was moved against the accused with the allegations that they had defrauded the Company by siphoning off the funds and had caused unlawful loss to the Company.

It was submitted that the FIR in the present case was registered on 10.08.2022 and the challan was presented on 07.12.2022. However, for the last two years, the accused are adopting the delaying tactics, just to ensure that the trial does not proceed before the trial Court.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Apex Court's decision in Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and connect case, [1994(2) RCR 169] to underscore that, "the right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial."

The Court also relied in Abdul Rehman Antulay and others vs. R.S. Nayak and another [1992(2) RCR 634], wherein the Supreme Court held that, fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused.

It observed that the criminal courts should exercise their available powers such as those under Section 309, 311 and 258 of Cr.P.C. to effectuate the right to speedy trial.

The Court noted that in the present case, "it is apparent that for the last two years, there has been no substantial progress before the trial Court."

Justice Shekhawat highlighted that the Court repeatedly held that the reasonable expeditious proceedings in a criminal trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.

In the light of the above, the Court directed to conclude the trial arising out of the FIR registered under Sections 408, 420 IPC (Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC added later on) expeditiously preferably within a period of two years.

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Title: Hero Cycles Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 410

Click here to read/download the order