AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The accused No.13 in C.C.No.310/2021 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the said court for the time bound disposal of the aforesaid case.
The offence alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 409, 417, 420 & 421 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, in connection with the collection of amounts from various persons with false promise of providing high returns of profits in money chain business.
Heard the learned counsel for the original petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
As per the judgment rendered in Allahabad High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 (6) SCC 267], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the constitutional courts from prescribing time limits for the disposal of the cases pending before the courts below, unless there are compelling reasons to adopt such a course.
Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Association (supra), are extracted hereunder:-
“32.Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time - bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out - of - turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.
33.There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out - of - turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day - to - day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”
As far as the present case is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that a speedy disposal of the case is necessitated in view of the health issues suffered by the petitioner.
Having regard to the complex nature of the crime involved in this case, and the nature of the evidence sought to be let in, the court below cannot be found to be at fault for the delay in the trial. That apart, it is not possible for this Court to ignore the fact that the Trial Court has to give priority to very old cases and the cases in which accused are remaining in custody as undertrial prisoners. In the above circumstances, a direction for the time bound disposal of the aforesaid case may not be in the interests of justice in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Association (supra). Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner, cannot be allowed.
In the result, the original petition is hereby dismissed.