Madras High Court
M.Daisy vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 January, 2016
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CRL.O.P(MD)No.804 of 2016 M.Daisy, aged about 57 years, D/o.Muthusamy, Women Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Musiri, Trichy District. ..Petitioner/Accused .Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirappalli District. ..Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to complete the trial and dispose of the case in Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2011, on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli within a time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :M/s.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondent :Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt.Advocate(Crl.side) :ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the present Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to complete the trial and dispose of the case in Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2011, on the file of the Learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Tiruchirappalli, within a time frame to be determined by this Court.
3.According to the Petitioner, while she was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Musiri, one Venkatachalam lodged a complaint before the Respondent/Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli, with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance on the allegation that she demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification(other than legal remuneration)for an amicable settlement of the complaint which was lodged by one Mrs.Malarkodi against her brother alleging that her daughter was abducted by one Gokul, who is the brother of the said Venkatachalam.
4.The stand of the Petitioner is that based on the aforesaid allegation, the Respondent/Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli had registered a case against her, in respect of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.20 of 2009. Further, after completion of investigation, the Respondent had filed a charge-sheet before the Learned Special Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Tiruchirappalli and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2011 under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5.Added further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that subsequently, one independent Special Court was constituted for trying the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thereafter, the case under Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2011 was transferred to the file of the Learned Special Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli and was re-numbered as Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2011.
6.At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that in the year 2011, summons was issued to L.W.1, but till date, there is no head-way or significant progress in the conduct of the trial of the main case on the file of the trial Court. In this connection, this Court very pertinently points out that the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in page 7 and 8 of the typed-set of papers in Crl.O.P(MD)No.804 of 2016 and mentioning the diary entries for the period from 13.06.2014 to 14.12.2015, which run as under:
DATED PARTICULARS 13.06.2014 Accused Present. Issue Fresh Summon to L.W.1 to L.W.4. Call on 4.8.2014. 01.08.2014 Accused Present. Issue Fresh Summon to L.W.1 to L.W.4. Call on 30.10.2014. 30.10.2014 Accused not present. Petition filed and allowed. Send summons to L.W.1 to 4 by 03.12.2014.
03.12.2014 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 08.01.2015. 08.01.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 19.02.2015. 19.02.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 25.03.2015. 25.03.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 23.04.2015. 23.04.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 27.05.2015. 27.05.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 01.07.2015 01.07.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 30.07.2015. 30.07.2015 Today Declared as Public Holiday. Hence all cases taken up on 31.07.2015. 31.07.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 27.08.2015. 27.08.2015 Accused present. Send summon to L.W.1 to 4 by 23.09.2015. 23.09.2015 Accused present. Issue summons to L.W.1 to 4, call on 26.10.2015. 26.10.2015 Accused present. Issue summons to L.W.1 to 4, call on 14.12.2015 14.12.2015 Accused present. Issue summons to L.W.1 to 4, call on 20.01.2016
7. In effect, the primordial stand of the Petitioner is that although the charge- sheet for the present case was filed in the year 2011, till date, there is no progress, much less a significant progress in the case and as such, necessary directions may kindly be caused to be issued by this Court to the trial Court to dispose of the case within a time frame to be determined by this Court.
8.It is to be borne in mind that the concept of 'speedy trial' is imbibed under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. Also that, Article 21 of the Constitution of India also speaks of ' individual liberty and by referring to the term 'speedy trial' had naturally means a quick/expeditious trial, which is an essential and integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty' in the considered opinion of this Court. No wonder 'speedy trial' is a constitutional requirement.
9.It cannot be forgotten that the right of 'speedy trial' flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it includes (1) stage of investigation (2) enquiry (3) trial (4) appeal (5) revision and (6)re-trial.
After all, in the interest of everyone, the guilt of innocence of the accused is to be decided as early as possible in a given case.
10.'Speedy Trial' is also in public/societal interest as opined by this Court. As a matter of fact, the ingredients of Section 309 of Cr.P.C are to be read harmoniously. Section 309(1) of Cr.P.C prescribes that when once examination of witness had commenced, the same shall be continued from day- to-day, until all the witnesses in attendance were examined as per decision in Aqnelo .vs. State, reported in 2002 Crl.L.J 3007 at Page 3010(Bom).
11.Ordinarily, it is neither desirable nor advisable to determine any time limit for trial of offences. But in the present case on hand, the Petitioner in paragraph 4 of Crl.O.P(MD)No.804 of 2016 had stated that she is going to attain the age of superannuation on 30.05.2016. Moreover, she was in prolonged suspension from the year 2009 mainly on the ground that the present Criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2011, on the file of the trial Court is pending. Therefore, this Court, in the interest of justice, fair play, equity, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Learned Special Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli to commence the trial of Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2011, pending on her file and to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court, without fail. The respective parties are directed to lend a helping hand to the trial Court in regard to the completion of the case in Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2011 within the time frame fixed by this Court.
12.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
To
1.The Special Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Registrar(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(To watch and report) .