This application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. sought an order for time-bound disposal of a pending criminal trial and transfer of the case due to vacancy of the judge. The court rejected the application, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad. No pleadings were noted to justify exceptional treatment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21772 of 2024
Applicant :- Dr Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- Cbi / Acb Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vikas Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for CBI.
Applicant Dr. Pankaj Kumar, has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for the following relief:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to instantly allow the present application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. and direct the trial Court to expedite the trail in pursuance of case no. 02/2017, passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption C.B.I. Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. FIR No. RC 1202016A0010/2016 P.S. CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, Us- 120B IPC & 7, 13(2) r/w/13 (1) D of P.C. Act, and conclude the same on day to day basis and within a stipulated time period of one year, which is pending since 2016 before the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption C.B.I. Court No.-1, Ghaziabad, otherwise the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court. may graciously be pleased to transfer the matter from Special Judge Anti-Corruption C.B.I. Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, (which is vacant since last 8 months) to another AntiCorruption C.B.I. Court No. 2/3, Ghaziabad, And/or to pass such order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper under the facts and the circumstances of the present case."
At the very outset, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for CBI has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present application. He submits that Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207 has observed that no direction for time bound disposal be given by the High Court under the circumstances are exceptional. With reference to the affidavit filed in support of present application he contends that no exceptional circumstances has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. He, therefore contends that prayer prayed for by means of present application is misconceived. Consequently, this application is liable to be dismissed.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for CBI and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that prayer prayed for by means of present application cannot be granted, in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) . Furthermore, no pleadings have been raised in support of this application, warranting special treatment. As such, this application is liable to be rejected.
It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Arshad
Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct time-bound disposal of a criminal trial under S. 482 Cr.P.C. without exceptional circumstances.
Whether transfer of criminal proceedings from a vacant special judge court is maintainable under S. 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr Pankaj Kumar
Rajeev Misra
Arshad Mahmood
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
