Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Whether the applicant or other accused persons can be held responsible for delay in initiation of trial due to their act of filing different applications before the learned Trial Court?

56. There is no dispute about the fact that the trial in this case is yet to commence, since the proceedings, which are to be mandatorily carried out under the law as per code of Criminal Procedure, are still underway as the accused persons have moved multiple individual applications related and unrelated to Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C. i.e. for supply of relevant documents, which is continuing till today.

―This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/ documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under the Cr.P.C. (Section 91 referred at footnote), for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the draft rules have been accordingly modified.‖

65. Thus, prima facie, the accused persons including the applicant herein have delayed the pre-charge proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by taking three months time from 19.10.2023 to 19.01.2024 for inspection of un-relied documents despite repeated directions from learned Trial Court to conclude the same expeditiously.

Applications unrelated to Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C.

66. This Court also notes that except the application pertaining to Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C., the applicant had also filed several other applications, unrelated to Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C. In this Court's opinion, the mere act of filing an application seeking any relief cannot automatically be construed as a delay tactic since an accused, who is in judicial custody, cannot be stopped from moving applications for fulfilment and enforcement of their personal, legal and fundamental rights and their applications cannot be simply termed as frivolous.