Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nokhu Ram And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 May, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CRMMO No. 170 of 2017
.
Decided on: 22.05.2017.
Nokhu Ram and Another ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Miss Parul Negi, Dy. AG.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the grievance which has been raised by the present petitioners is that on the basis of FIR No. 1 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007, registered in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau at Reckong Peo, challan was filed against them for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The challan according to the petitioners was filed in the year 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 00:00:24 :::HCHP 22012 and since then, despite the matter having been listed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Rampur, .
camp at Reckong Peo on numerous occasions, charge has not been framed till date, as a result of which trial has not commenced.
2. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners who are accused in FIR, at least have a right of fair and speedy trial and said right of their is being defeated on account of acts and omissions on the part of the respondents. He has prayed that learned trial Court be directed to dispose of the trial in the case so registered pursuant to FIR No. 1 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007, registered in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau at Reckong Peo, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as expeditiously as possible. It is also stated in the petition that petitioner No. 1 is suffering from lung cancer and is under treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and is not in a position to frequently travel to Kinnaur.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 00:00:24 :::HCHP 33. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General. Keeping in view .
the fact that FIR was registered in the year 2007 and the challan was filed in the year 2012, there is merit in the contention of Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in the commencement of trial amounts to defeating the right of fair and speedy trial as
4. to far as the present petitioners are concerned.
Right to fair and speedy trial is a fundamental right of the petitioners. A five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 225, Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Versus R.S. Nayak and Another, has held that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused.
The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also,does not make it any less the right of the accused as it is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 00:00:24 :::HCHP 4 determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances of the case.
.
5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to positively frame the charges on the next date of hearing which is stated to be 13.06.2017. In case there is some difficulty before the learned trial Court in framing charges on the said date, then the framing of charges in no eventuality shall be delayed beyond 31st of July, 2017. Learned trial Court is further directed to expedite the trial of the case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms with liberty to the petitioners that in case there is unnecessary and unjustifiable delay in the trial, then the petitioners can again approach this Court for appropriate directions. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 22, 2017 (narender) ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 00:00:24 :::HCHP 5 .
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 00:00:24 :::HCHP