AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The primary ground on which the present petition is filed is the inordinate delay in the progress of the proceedings and that the petitioner who has been facing the proceedings since the year 2009, has been denied his chance of promotion for at least six years now and therefore, seeks expedition in the trial and complains of the tardy progress.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor however would point out that the blame for the delay cannot be placed entirely at the door of the prosecution. The circumstances of the case are that the petitioner himself had sought to press certain applications which were pending consideration and therefore, there was some delay. However, there is progress to be seen and that witness not having appeared before the Trial Court on witness summons, the matter has been adjourned on some occasions. This however would not be entirely cause for the delay.
In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the proceedings and to ensure that there is progress. The prosecution need not be given any indulgence in matters of adjournment on the ground that the witnesses are not available. If the witnesses fail to appear diligently, it is for the court below to take stringent measures and proceed with the case and not unduly adjourn the case at the request of the prosecution. In further ensuring speedy progress of the case, the court below shall also take note of Section 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in appropriate circumstances, invoke the same as could be done in the present case as well. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
It is also made clear that the petitioner - accused should also not be given any long rope in proceeding with the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further raises a contention that it is on record that the material which was gathered in the first instance by an Investigating Officer who was not authorized without proper sanction to investigate, had conducted the investigation and had gathered some material. Such material is sought to be pressed into service under the present charges which the petitioner faces and this was an objection that was subject matter of an earlier petition before this court and this court having held that there was no irregularity or illegality in such reference to material gathered in earlier investigation though it was not authorized, has held that it would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner or result in any miscarriage of justice. That observation was subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court in turn, has expunged the observations and findings as regards this aspect and the question is left open. Therefore, the question shall remain open and could be addressed by the petitioner at the trial.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously disputes this factum.
The learned counsel for the petitioner however seeks to produce a copy of the order of the Apex Court, which could be very well produced before the Trial Court if this controversy is raked up all over again. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
I.A.1/2016 is disposed of as a consequence.