Dive into the complexities of expediting criminal trials, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as analyzed by the court. Understanding the nuances of legal challenges and the role of the judiciary in delivering prompt justice is crucial in upholding the principles of law and order.
Facts
- FIR lodged against the appellant remained stayed by the High Court, delaying the charge-sheet filing.
- Writ Petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel.
- Respondent No.2, a social activist and advocate, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking expedited trial proceedings.
- Vigilance Department initiated an inquiry based on a complaint by R.K. Choudhary.
- High Court directed a preliminary investigation by CBI in PIL No.35628/2013.
- High Court disposed of respondent No.2’s application, directing expedited conclusion of Special Trial No.520/2020.
- Appellant challenged High Court’s order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. contending lack of locus standi for respondent No.2.
- High Court issued order without notice to the appellant, prompting appellant to file a restoration/recall application for Writ Petition No.45047/2005.
- Respondent No.2 highlighted delay in investigation and legal challenges faced by the accused persons.
- Appellant is accused in FIR No.02/2006, Vigilance Department, Lucknow under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- High Court directed trial court to expedite and conclude the criminal trial at the earliest.
- High Court previously ordered that the complainant R.K. Choudhary must be examined first before proceeding with the inquiry against the appellant.
- Secretary, Vigilance, U.P. directed lodging of an FIR against the appellant and five others on 08.12.2005.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Scheduled Tribes Caste Inclusion Case
Analysis
- The criminal trial in question was registered only after the charge-sheet was filed on 23.05.2020 in FIR 02/2006.
- Charges have not yet been framed by the trial court.
- Provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act mandate that trials must be conducted on a day-to-day basis to ensure expeditious justice.
- The High Court can direct trial courts to expedite proceedings in appropriate cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or through other means.
- A criminal Revision filed by H.S. Chowdhary to quash the order of the Special Judge was dismissed by the High Court.
- Appeals were filed in the Supreme Court by various parties, including H.S. Chowdhary, challenging the High Court’s decision.
- The High Court emphasized that third parties should not intervene in criminal cases under the guise of public interest litigation, leaving legal challenges to the accused individuals themselves.
- The obligation to ensure expeditious criminal trials lies with the State and prosecution to deliver justice promptly to the accused if found guilty.
- Prosecution or employer of the accused did not file an application seeking direction as requested by respondent No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Locus of a third party to challenge criminal proceedings or seek relief for accused addressed in Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary and others, (1993) 1 SCC 756.
- Agreement with the part of the Order holding that Mr. H.S. Chowdhary and other intervening parties have no locus standi.
- Criminal trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be concluded promptly
- High Court’s order to expedite criminal trial generally cannot be objected to
- In this case, the application by respondent No.2 lacked standing and was not maintainable
- Court set aside the part of the order where suo moto cognizance was taken
- Third parties cannot intervene in criminal cases under the guise of Public Interest Litigants
- Respondent No.2 had no standing to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to expedite the hearing
Also Read: Improving Patient Care: Court’s Legal Analysis
Decision
- None of the observations made in this order will affect the criminal trial.
- The trial court is permitted to expedite the criminal trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, subject to any order by the High Court.
- The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court dated 09.09.2020 is set aside.
- The application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Compensation and Protection for a Rape Victim
Case Title: SANJAI TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2020 INSC 704)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000869-000869 / 2020
