Altaf Ahmad Rather & Anr vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1) The petitioners, who are facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, in case FIR No.22/2017 registered by Police Station, Soura, for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 120-B RPC, by the instant petition, have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking a direction to the trial court for fast tracking the case and complying with the procedure laid down under Rules 81 to 84 of the General Criminal Rules framed by this Court.

2) The petitioners claim that the challan in the case was presented before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on 12rh of July, 2017 and thereafter same was committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, and thereafter, on transfer, is pending trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. It is claimed that more than two years have elapsed, the trial court has not been able to conclude the trial. Learned `Senior Advocate relies upon Rules 81 to 84 of the General Criminal Rules framed by this Court, to contend that there is a set procedure laid down in the rules which, if followed, would expedite the trial and cut down the unnecessary delay. However, the trial court is not heeding to the aforesaid rules and, therefore, unnecessary delay is being caused. He also relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of "Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar", (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 95, to urge that the right of speedy trial of an accused is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be put on the alter of whims of trial court.

3) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I am of the view that there is no undue delay caused in conducting the trial court in the case by the trial court. The status report submitted by the trial court in compliance to the direction of this Court dated 07.05.2019 makes it abundantly clear that there has been no deliberate delay on the part of trial court in the matter but most of the delay that has occurred so far has been due to the acts attributable to the defence. The petitioners have been filing bail applications, one after the another and it has taken sometime to dispose of such bail applications. In any case, I do not find it a case of inordinate delay which could be said to be infringing the right of the petitioners to speedy trial. Having said that, it may not be out of place to remind the trial court that it is required to follow the General Criminal Rules framed for achieving the speedy disposal of the cases.

4) I am aware that given the bulk of litigation, civil as well as criminal, pending before our trial courts, it is not possible to conclude the criminal trials with lightening speed, as is claimed by the petitioners. However, due adherence to the procedural rules framed by this Court to achieve speedy disposal of the cases needs to be kept in mind. I hope and trust that the learned trial court is well aware of the procedure and the rules that are required to be followed for achieving the speedy trial court shall be adhered to.