Disposed

Mahesh Chand S/O Late Shri Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2020CRLMP/5136/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed the delay in disposing of a criminal application under Sections 227 and 229 of the CrPC, citing precedents on PIL and PC Act delays. It observed that adjournments in PC Act cases harm moral and trial integrity, directing their expedited disposition and restricting long adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The pending application under Section 227 read with Section 229 Cr.P.C. shall be disposed of, and future applications must be dealt with expeditiously.

Mahesh Chand S/O Late Shri Brijendra Singh Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMP-5136/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5136/2020

¶5

Mahesh Chand S/o Late Shri Brijendra Singh, R/o Village Pagor, Presently Shyam Nagar P.s. Mathura Gate Bharatpur Raj.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abhay Kumar Jain for
	Ms. Parinitoo Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. F.R. Meena,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

02/11/2020

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was moved under Section 227 read with Section 229 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, which is pending for more than one year and in this regard, order-sheets have also been shown to the Court, which show that case has been adjourned several times.

¶15

The Apex Court as well as this Court has been time and again stressed that cases relating to the PC Act must be disposed of. However, the matters are being adjourned at the asking of the concerned advocates. Accordingly, it is directed that cases relating to the PC Act, which are pending in the Courts, should not be ordinarily adjourned and long dates ought not to be given in the matter as it not only affects moral of the concerned government servant but also affects the trial as investigation gets prolonged and witnesses’ statements also get affected.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-5136/2020]

¶18

The Supreme Court in the case of V.S. Achuthanandan

¶19

Versus R. Balakrishna Pillai & Others reported in 2011 (3)

¶20

SCC 317 held as under:

¶21

“106. We are conscious of the fact that the Government of India, Department of Law & Justice is making all efforts for expeditious disposal of cases of this nature by constituting Special courts, however, the fact remains that it takes longer time to reach its destination. We are of the view that when a matter of this nature is entrusted to a Special Court or a regular Court, it is but proper on the part of the court concerned to give priority to the same and conclude the trial within a reasonable time. The High Court, having overall control and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is expected to monitor and even call for a quarterly report from the court concerned for speedy disposal. Inasmuch as the accused is entitled to speedy justice, it is the duty of all in charge of dispensation of justice to see that the issue reaches its end as early as possible.”

¶22

The Supreme Court also in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299 held

¶23

as under:-

¶24

“30. It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the PC Act cases, has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest. Delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases it has been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint. Mere prima facie case is not enough. Party seeking stay must be

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5136/2020]

¶26

put to terms and stay should not be incentive to delay. The order granting stay must show application of mind. The power to grant stay is coupled with accountability.”

¶27

In view thereof, it is directed that the application pending before the concerned Court shall be disposed of and in future too, if any, application is moved before the Court, the same should be taken up and dealt with expeditiously.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal misc. petition is disposed of.

¶29

Copy of this order be sent to the all concerned ACB Courts for compliance.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

Karan Bhutani /531/41

Mahesh Chand S/O Late Shri Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chand S/O Late Shri Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar S/O Sh. Tejaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Julfi Singh S/O Shri Jawahar Singh B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kurshid S/O Roojdar B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Joruram S/O Shri Munnaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan Gupta S/O Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwan Saini Son of Jagdish Lal Mali Vs State of Rajasthan