Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delay can’t end graft cases: SC -R Balaji

Delay can’t end graft cases: SC -R Balaji

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Apr 1, 2013   modified Modified on Apr 1, 2013
-The Telegraph


The Supreme Court has held that criminal cases, particularly corruption-related, cannot be quashed because of prolonged delay in trial.

The recent ruling assumes significance against the backdrop of a pile-up in cases and a perception fuelled by time lag that those charged with corruption usually get away lightly.

The Supreme Court's decision came while it refused to quash a 27-year-old graft case filed by the anti-corruption bureau against the then deputy commissioner of Maharashtra department of prohibition and excise.

An FIR, filed on June 26, 1986, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, had accused Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal of acquiring disproportionate assets of Rs 33.44 lakh.

The apex court held that though the accused was entitled to a speedy trial under Article 21, courts cannot quash cases merely on account of delay as it has to consider various reasons, including attempts by the accused to seek repeated adjournments.

"Be it noted, the system of good governance is founded on the collective faith in the institutions. If corrosions are allowed to continue by giving allowance to quash the proceedings in corruption cases solely because of delay without scrutinising other relevant factors, a time may come when unscrupulous people would foster and garner the tendency to pave the path of anarchism," the court said.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and K.S. Radhakrishnan said corruption mothered disorder, destroyed societal will to progress, accelerated undeserved ambitions and paralysed the economic health of the country.

In the Sashittal case, a chargesheet was filed in March 1993. However, the charges were framed only in December 2007.

The official claimed that during the trial, his wife passed away and that only in 2011, four years after the framing of charges, was the investigating officer examined by the prosecution. Sashittal also said the matter was adjourned on many occasions.

However, the state said the trial could not be held because of numerous miscellaneous applications moved by the accused. The accused had pleaded that the framing of charges should be deferred until all the miscellaneous applications were decided, the state said.

The apex court, citing the Constitution bench's rulings in 1992, 1993 and 2002, said no time limit could be stipulated for disposal of criminal trial. The delay had to be weighed on the factual scale and the nature of the offence as well as the concept of social justice had to be taken into account.

"It can be stated with absolute assurance that the tendency to abuse the official position has spread like an epidemic and has... (made) the collective believe that unless bribe is given, the work may not be done," the bench said.

The Supreme Court said it was the accused who had filed the numerous applications before different courts.

"When we say so, we may not be understood to have said that the accused is debarred in law to file application but when delay is caused on the said score, he cannot advance a plea that the delay in trial has caused colossal hardship and agony warranting quashment of the entire criminal proceedings," the bench said.

However, it asked the special judge dealing with the case to dispose of the trial by the end of December this year.


The Telegraph, 1 April, 2013, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/nation/story_16733147.jsp#.UVkcqDfcing


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close