Report by Monishka Allahbadi

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate/Court must use its discretion when exercising the powers granted to it by Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). According to Justice Kauser Edappagath, courts should not simply forward all complaints they receive like a post office when taking cognizance of offenses or ordering an investigation into any cognizable case. As a result, it was emphasized that the powers granted under Section 156(3) must be exercised with caution and discretion. “The Magistrate/Court also has a duty to protect the accused’s interests because, under S.156(3) Cr.Pc., the accused has no right of hearing during the investigation or forwarding of the complaint to the police.”

In JIBIN JOSEPH VS. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ANR., an Additional Public Prosecutor of a District and Sessions Court in Lakshadweep had petitioned the High Court to quash a Sessions Court order which directed the police investigation into a complaint filed against him under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. The 2nd respondent, in this case, is a lawyer who practices in Lakshadweep and was representing an accused in another POCSO case in which a minor girl was kidnapped and sexually assaulted.

Initially, the 2nd respondent posted on Facebook that the petitioner was constantly contacting the minor survivor and was involved in her disappearance. A case, however, was filed against the second respondent for revealing the survivor’s identity in the post.

Following that, the second respondent filed a slew of complaints alleging the same thing. The Station House Officer, however, did not file a report. Soon after, a private complaint was filed before the Sessions Court which was forwarded to the SHO for Section 156 inquiry (3). The petitioner in this case is contesting this order. The petitioner’s attorney, S. Rajeev, stated that the Sessions Court merely submitted the complaint automatically without giving it any thought. He claimed that the 2nd respondent’s complaint was intentionally filed with the intent to “wreak personal vengeance” on the petitioner.

However, Attorney Vijin Karthik for the 2nd respondent contended that the Magistrate was not compelled to undertake a roving inquiry regarding all of the claims in the complaint at the time of transferring the same to the police for investigation in accordance with Section 156 (3).

The Court emphasized that the accused must have sexual intent and actual control or charge over the minor in order to commit the offence specified in Section 75 of the JJ Act. The SHO’s report, which said that the inquiry had determined the charges to be without merit, was also looked at by the Judge. It was observed:

“It is settled that the powers under S.156(3) of the Cr.PC cannot be exercised casually or mechanically but are required to be exercised judiciously…….The Magistrate/Court is not merely functioning as a “post office” in forwarding anything and everything filed in the form of a complaint. The Magistrate/Judge should certainly scrutinize the allegations in the complaint to satisfy himself that it discloses the necessary ingredients of the offence for which investigation is intended to be ordered and to find out whether it is a matter to be forwarded to the police to collect materials for a successful prosecution against the accused.”

The High Court quashed the order of the sessions court to prevent sheer abuse of the process of law.

-Report by Rhea Mistry

The Madras High Court recently in K. Kumarodass vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, remanded the police for corruption. Mr. K Kumaradoss, the petitioner is a retired Special Sub Inspector of Police. He was first admitted as GR-II Police Constable in the year 1977 and later promoted to the level of Special Sub Inspector of police. The special Sub Inspector was permitted to retire from his service in the year 2010. During the service of Mr. K Kumaradoass in the police, a memo was charged against him alleging that he had collected a Mamool of Rs 50/- twice in a week from Mr. Ravi who was running a bunk shop not far away from a TUSMAC shop. The memo that was charged against Mr. K Kumaradoss stated that he was alleged for misconduct. The materials, list of documents, and the statement of the witnesses proved the same.


Considering the evidence and the statements of the witnesses, the court had appointed an inquiry officer to investigate the matter. The accused was allowed to be a part of the inquiry process. The inquiry officer made a report after the cross-examination of the witnesses and the documents, stating that the allegation stands true. The Disciplinary Authority instituted a punishment of reduction in his time scale pay by three stages for three years and said that the period of reduction shall function to delay three years’ worth of future increases. Mr. K Kumaradoss went for an appeal which was rejected and so he filed a writ petition challenging the order of his punishment of reduction of time scale pay.

This writ petition is against

  • The Principal Secretary of Government,
  • The Director of Police
  • The Commissioner of Police
  • The Dy. Commissioner of Police

Contentions by the Petitioner

The learned counsel of the petitioner presented that the petitioner, Mr. K Kumaradoss has a record of 35 years’ service without any bad record, or a mark made upon him. He has been very devoted and ethical to his service. The allegation made against him is false and a proper inquiry was not conducted as there was no bunk shop close to the TUSMAC shop as stated. The petitioner’s counsel also advanced the circular issued on 25th May 2010 by the Director-General of the Police that any punishments can be seamlessly integrated out when the officer is still on duty and service preventing the imposition of sanctions that will be impossible or difficult to carry out in future. And the punishment implemented on the writ petitioner was not during his service, but it was imposed at the furthermost point in his retirement, so such punishment cannot be imposed on the petitioner.

The writ petition prayed that the order of his punishment is quashed and he is promoted to the position of SSI effective from April 9th, 2010, with all services and retirement benefits.

Contentions by the Respondents

The respondents learned special government counsel argued the contentions of the writ petitioner. Respondents stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was during the period of his full-time service and not during the furthermost point in his retirement. And so, the circular relied upon does not apply to this punishment.

Another statement the learned special government counsel made is that the allegation raised against the petitioner is a corruption charge and is a serious crime made by the officer. It is serious and the same should be taken seriously. The counsel had cross-examined the witnesses and the reports submitted by the inquiring officer, they presented that the charges were proved and true that the petitioner was taking a Mamool of Rs 50/- twice a week from Mr. Ravi. According to the reports and cross-examination, the order of the punishment was implemented, so the writ petition of the petitioner is to be rejected.

RATIO DECIDENDI

During the deposition, various facts and truths have come forward. The complainant, Mr. Ravi, the owner of the bunk shop confessed that he is regularly paying Mamool to the constables twice a week. The petitioner too confessed that he is collecting Mamool from him. Mr. Ravi also revealed that he was threatened by the petitioner and had to pay Rs. 100/- as Mamool to him when asked by him. Another witness Mr. Thiru Mani agreed that the constables are collecting Mamool regularly. A Police Officer also deposed about the collection of Mamool by the constables. The report submitted by the inquiry officer held that the materials presented were true to the fact and stated that after a thorough and proper inquiry, it was found that the bunk shop owner was paying Mamool to the constables. Looking at all the points and statements of the witnesses and the reports, it was held that the complaint against the writ petitioner is actionable and imposed the punishment.

DECISION

The court in this matter stated that reviewing the punishment implemented on the petitioner for the crime of collecting a Mamool, the authority is not taking corruption charges seriously. In this case, there was no criminal charge registered against the petitioner by the owner of the bunk shop. The authority does not seem to be concerned about the collection of Mamool by their officers.

Regarding the severity of the punishment imposed, the court does not identify any flaws and perversities in light of the facts and circumstances presented. This court also said that the court has the power of judicial review by Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that the procedure followed by the authority to get to the decision taken by them is by the rules and regulations provided, but not the actual decision.

This court stated that there should be honesty and integrity in the public servants while doing their duties and responsibilities as to no allegation of corruption can be made against them. The public servants of the country are given a decent and enough salary. The competitiveness that has increased in comparing their salary with the employees of the private sector is what is driving them to be corrupt. They held that the authorities are not considering the seriousness of the corruption of their officers and public servants. There have been various judgments and debates regarding corruption. A change should be brought that will prevent the public servants from corruption. In light of the above, the court will send instructions and circulars stating that for any conduct of corruption, there should be a criminal case registered against the police officials who have collected the Mamool.

And for the writ petition, the decision of the punishment is not perverse and the charges against the petitioner are proved to be correct without any perversity. The writ petition therefore fails and stands dismissed.

About the University

Alakh Prakash Goyal Shimla University is located on the outskirts of Shimla city, on a hilltop. It’s a mini township on its own, with all the facilities within the campus which offers a wide variety of courses ranging from engineering, information technology, management, media, commerce, law, hospitality, architecture and fashion.

About the Competition

The event is about an incidental Crime Study which will be committed and participant’s as individuals or a team (2 Members) will be investigating the crime via virtual simulation mode to solve the Crime-Mystery.

Rules

  • All official details will be communicated via Email.
  • Do have a note with your Registration Code which will be provided to you via Email.
  • On January 11, 2022 by 9 AM, the organizers will provide you with the Crime Scene kit via Email.
  • With the use of Crime Scene kit participant have to fill-up Crime-Report which will be attached with the same Email with Instructions.
  • Further there will be a submission link will be attached along in the email on which you have to submit your Crime-Report in the given duration which will be communicated along with the email on January 11, 2022.
  • The Event will be in two phase which is submission of Crime-Report & presentation of Crime-Report.
  • For submission of Crime-Report the details have been explained above & further the presentation of Crime-Report will be conducted via virtual meeting platform on which you will be hosted by organising Team and you will Present the Crime-Report to the Jury.
  • The details of virtual meeting link along with your presentation time slot will be communicated along with the Email on January 11, 2022.
  • In case of any contingent situation the coordinators decision will be final.

Date of Event

January 11-12, 2022

Registration Deadline

January 9, 2022

Registration link

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfhBURM0UEDKeCSM0_ZxItYWEPZC9-iHku2YXs3xkYJW7xgGQ/viewform

Registration Fee

  • Individual: Rs.499/-
  • Team of 2 members: Rs. 799/-

Prize

  • Amazing Goodies for Winners
  • E-Participation Certificates for all Participants
  • Recognition Certificate for the Winners

Contact Details

Contact Numbers:

  • +91-8628829824
  • +91-7597033225

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on LexPeeps is true to our knowledge. But still it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GRdQLsHRwmB7QVRmS3WK

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

The court today has declined to stay the release of the film Nyaay: the justice which is based on the life of Sushant Singh Rajput. So the K.K Singh had made an Appeal that the movie has been released on a website and he sought to stay on its release on any other OTT Platform and in cinema halls.

The division bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Jasmeet Singh, while issuing a notice for July 14 to the respondents in the Appeal filed by Singh, said that there was nothing in this movie that would affect the investigation in the SSR case.

The court further said that you have not written a script or a story that has been used by the filmmaker. There is nothing that they have or they could have had. Expect what is available in the public domain. Therefore, the movie is something which the public is interested in and they have made just a movie. The court stated. The bench further added that there does not seem to be any interference in the investigation because of the production of movies on Rajput’s life. It further said that is it your case that life story of that celebrity is itself copyrightable which is nothing in material form asked the court.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing K.K Singh, said that the Rajput was an extremely successful actor and the filmmakers were using his personal life story. There is a right of a father to protect the reputation of his son. So K.K Singh’s lawyer said this in front of the court. The Bench further said that we will have it on 14th July, while hearing the application of Rajput’s father Krishna Kishore Singh, in the appeal against the single judge order refusing to stay the release of the film. And also said that I’m not disposed at this stage.

-Report by RAVINUTHALA VAMSI KRISHNA

Introduction

ORIGIN:

The inception of speedy trial, as per several writers dates back to the twelfth century and can be traced in Assize of Clarendon [act of Henry II of England in 1166], famous tomes of Sir Edward Coke and it can also be traced in Magna Carta of 1215 which states, ”we will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”.

 The first constitution in which the right to a speedy trial can be found is the constitution of the United States of America. This right is enshrined under the 6th amendment of the American constitution.

DEFINITION:

The right to a speedy trial is a human right granted to a defendant to be tried for alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being taken into custody.

MEANING:

Right to a speedy trial is the basic feature of a judicial system. Forthwith, the right to speedy trials is internationally recognized as a human right. In general, speedy trial means that the accused must be brought to trial within a reasonable amount of time unless the defendant affirmatively waives the right to a speedy trial or if there is a good cause for delay. It also signifies that the government is legally not permitted to lock people up for an un-definite period without trying them and that the defendant has the right to be free from the unlawful seizure. 

Brief

POSTULATION:

The right to a speedy trial is a right framer designed to protect a person from prolonged de facto punishment which is an extended accusation that limits the liberty and besmirches the good name of an accused. In common, the word speedy means something done without delay or promptly. And trial means a judicial examination and determination of issues between parties by a judge.  In general, the term speedy trial is a trial conducted without undue delay or within a reasonable period of time in accordance with established rules and procedures. 

A number of states adopted speedy trial legislation before the late sixties and periodically bills related to speedy trials were introduced starting from American congress early initiatives on invoking the defendant’s sixth amendment right to a speedy trial, article 21 of Indian constitution, article 6 of the European convention on human rights and so on.  The roots of speedy trial can be traced in a bill introduced by representative Abner J. Mikva in November 1969 entitled “Pretrial crime reduction act”.

Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice.  It is a prominent right of a person and also it is of paramount importance. The speedy trial makes sense only when it includes the ingredients of fairness in all stages of trial which include (i) Investigation (ii) inquiry(iii) trial(iv) Appeal (v) Revision (vi) Re-trial. In A.R.  Antualy  v. V. S. R. Nayak5, the supreme court of India held that it is neither desirable nor advisable to fix any time limit for the trial of offenses. In case of delay in the trial, the prosecution is to justify the delay. Sometimes delay in the speedy trial would depend on the nature, facts, circumstances of the case which has been discussed in many prominent cases. The right to a speedy trial cannot be denied to the accused on the grounds that he failed to demand a speedy trial. In case, if a person’s right to a speedy trial is infringed, the accused person can seek relief from the competent court having jurisdiction.

ADVANTAGES:

  • Speedy trail reduces the defendants stress and allows them to collect and present evidence while it is still fresh.
  • It safeguards and prevents undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial.
  • It further protects the interest of the public, victims and witnesses, in the fair, accurate and timely resolution of criminal cases.
  • It helps in monitoring the performance of the courts and there justice system along with timely management.
  • It ensures that many cases are resolved rapidly, scheduling functions with a high rate of certainty in regard to case scheduling.
  • It helps in formally recognizing the right to speedy trial conferred to an accused.
  • It protects the accused from the turmoil of stress by quick and faire trials.

DISADVANTAGES:

  • It is not possible to determine the speed or delay of a case   because, the speed or delay would depend on the nature of the case and the existing  situations prevailing in a country.
  • Some prosecutors say that delay in trial helps in ‘’high quality prosecution’’ and hence speedy trial may not deliver justice in real.
  •  Hurried trial may lead to unnecessary steps which may give rise to large number of cases that ends in guilty pleas.

GROUNDS FOR DELAY IN TRIAL:

  • Docket explosion.
  • Delay in delivering justice.
  • Failure to testify   witnesses however present.
  •  Prevailing Situations in the country like pandemics.
  • Less number of judges and courts in accordance with the existing population.
  • Delay in process of investigation and enquiry.
  • Improper system for day to day hearings.

LANDMARK CASES:

  • BARKER  V. WINGO[1972]

This is a United States Supreme Court case that specifically involves about right of the defendant in criminal cases to a speedy trial. In the case, the court held that it is not possible to determine with precision when a right like a speedy trial is denied. It is impossible to say how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be deliberate. The court rejected the approach to “quantified speedy trial into a specified number of days or months” and “demand-waiver doctrine”. Rejecting these two rigid approaches in knowing the violation of speedy trial, the court adopted more flexible factors. Those factors include (i) Length of delay (ii) Reason for the delay (iii) Defendants assertion of his rights (iv) Prejudice to the defendant.

  • HUSSAINARAR KHATOON AND ORS  V. HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR:

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that there is absolutely no reason for undertrials to be allowed to continue in jail for a moment longer. And such continuance of detention would violate not only human dignity but also their fundamental right under article 21 of the Indian constitution.  The lordship also observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person’s liberty cannot be reasonably fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of guilt of such person. 

  • STATE OF MAHARASTRA V. CHAMPA LAL:

In this case, the court held that the grounds of delay in a case would depend on the facts like nature of the case, circumstances of the case, etc.  And hence, there is a distinction between the delay caused by the accused and the delay caused by the prosecution agencies.

EPIDEMICS AND SPEEDY TRIAL:

  COVID-19 has postponed many trials due to which undertrials languished behind the bars with no clear indication of when their cases will be heard.  Though the courts need to keep people safe during pandemics, they need to make sure that every avenue is explored to protect people’s constitutional rights. Languishing in jail is not justice, especially when a person is found innocent once a trial is held. The court can treat people fairly by first clearing serious cases, home detention over non-violent people, use of technology to initiate early court proceeding through E-Courts, digitalization of case records, and investigation reports. 

Right to Speedy Trial in Context of India:

  1. EVOLUTION OF SPEEDY TRIAL IN INDIA:

During medieval period, the Mughal king Aurangzeb was the first ruler who evolved the concept of speedy trial. The “Fatawa Alamgiri” is the drafted evidence which says that no person shall be arrested without permission of Kasi and justice shall be done quickly after the arrest of the accused and no person could be anguished in jail for an indefinite period unless the guilt is proved.

  1. ARTICLE 21:

The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right inherent under article 21 of Indian constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Though the speedy trial is not mentioned specifically, it is enumerated as a fundamental right as the content of article 21 as interpreted by the court in Maneka Gandhi v. union of India. In this case, the court held that no person can be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed or established by law and such procedure needs to be reasonable, fair, and just. It means that no person can be tried for an indefinite time after being arrested. When a person is arrested beyond a reasonable time, it violates the right to personal liberty.    

  1. LEGISLATIVE FRAME WORK:

 Not only article 21 and article 39A of directive principles of state policy but there are also several provisions in the Criminal procedure code, 1973 (Here in after Cr. P.C) which safeguards and ensures speedy trial.  Indeed there is a number of provisions in criminal procedure code that ensure speedy trial starting from arrest to passing of final judgment. There are no specific provisions as of speedy trial because speedy trial is only possible when all the agencies like police and prosecutors  work in a balanced manner with established rules and procedures with the component of fairness in every process of trial. Some of the provisions which ensure a speedy trial are:

  1. Section 57 of Cr. P. C:

 According to section 57 of the criminal procedure code, a person arrested cannot be e detained for more than 24 hours. Only when a person is arrested without a warrant and in absence of a special order of a magistrate under section 167, exceed 24 hours exclusively of time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court.

  1. Section 167 (2) of Cr. P. C:

Section   167 of the criminal procedure code tells about the procedure to be followed when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. This section provides the magistrate to authorize the detention of an accused in a custody, which he thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days on the whole.

  1. Section 167 (2A) of Cr. P. C:

 Under this section  the magistrate may authorize the detention of an accused person beyond the period of 15 days if he is  satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so but, no magistrate  shall authorize the detention of an accused person in the custody of a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation is relating to an offense punishable with death,  imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and 60 days where the investigation is  related to any other offenses and on expiry of such period the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared to do so 

  1. Section 173(1) of Cr. P. C:

This section provides that every investigation under chapter XII shall be completed without undue delay. This section provides that in every inquiry or trial, the proceeding shall be held as soon as possible, and once the examination of witnesses begins the same shall be continued from day to day till all the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless the court of law thinks it’s necessary to adjourn the same beyond that following day for the reasons to be recorded.

Section 173(1A) of Cr. P.C:

This section provides that investigation in case of child rape to be completed within three months from date on which the officer in charge of police station has recorded information regarding the case.

  1. Section 309(1) of Cr. P. C:

This section provides that in every inquiry or trial, the proceeding shall be held as soon as possible, and once the examination of witnesses begins the same shall continue from day to day till all the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless the court of law thinks it is necessary to adjourn the same beyond that following day for the reasons to be recorded.

These are few prominent provisions that ensure speedy trial.

  1. VIOLATION  OF  RIGHIT  TO  SPEEDY  TRIAL:

The right to a speedy trial is available to an accused at all stages of trial namely investigation, inquiring, trial appeal, revision, and re-trial. According to the 221st report of the law Commission of India, speedy trial is the fundamental right of every citizen to get speedy justice and Speedy trial is the fundamental requirement of good judicial administration. The Indian constitution provides that whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right, a person can move to the Supreme Court under article 32 and the high court under article 226 of the constitution. 

  1. FAST TRACK COURTS:

Fast track courts were established in India in the year 2000 with the aim to clear the long-pending sessions and other lower judicial cases. As of September 2020, there are 597 fast track courts of which 321 are exclusively POCSCO courts. According to National crime record bureau data,  nearly  26965 pending cases were completed by fast-track courts. Though the fast track courts have been functioning well in matters of many cases there still has been an evidence of large-scale protests demanding stricter punishments and speedy trial in cases of sexual assault against women. One such incident is gang rape of a 23-year-old woman which is also known as Nirbhaya case. In this case the Delhi fast track court sentenced the four accused to death on 13th September 2013. But, the convicts were hanged in Tihar jail in the month of March in the year 2020. Such huge delay in few cases especially in criminal cases has affected not only a single society but also the whole country.

  1. JUVENILE AND SPEEDY TRAIL:

The juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2015 ensures speedy trial in section 36 which orders speedy social investigation and section 14(5) which tells about steps to be followed for a fair and speedy inquiry in case of juveniles. In Sheela Barse and Ors v. union of India and Ors (1986), the court held that the problem of detention of children accused of an offence would become easier if the investigation by the police and the trial by magistrate could be expedited.  This case focuses on the constitutional and statutory rights of a huge number of children being violated due to which they have been suffering custodial restrains.  It is important for a juvenile to have a speedy trial so that the juvenile can be addressed proper treatment and rehabilitation as the children are very prominent assets of a society.

Conclusion:

Speedy trial is the need of the hour.  The purpose of speedy trial is to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty within a reasonable time with the component of justice.  There is a proverb – justice delayed is justice denied.   But there is another proverb which says   justice hurried is justice buried. Though it is true that delay defeats justice, it is also true that a quick trial cannot be ensured as reasonable, fair, and just. This is because a delayed trial is always not an unfair trail. Only when there is a proper balance between speed and justice, it would serve its actual purpose. 

Finally, the state, concerned authorities and agencies as a guardian of people’s rights are duty bound to ensure speedy trial so as to avoid delay in a trial which would lead to miscarriage of justice. 

This article is authored by Jakkula Hilda who is pursuing BA.LLB at University College of law (Osmania University).

LATEST POSTS


ARCHIVES