ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Supreme Court asks Bihar to constitute five special courts to try corruption cases, upholds the fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused

The Supreme Court has directed the Bihar government to constitute within three months at least five special courts to try corruption cases in the state.

This direction was issued by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice M M Punchhi, Justices K T Thomas and M Srinivasan in the judgment on an appeal against a Patna high court order. The latter had dismissed a writ petition filed by Raj Deo Sharma, an accused in a Central Bureau of Investigation case for accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.

After a 18-year delay in the trial, Sharma had approached the high court to quash the proceedings against him. The plea was rejected.

The apex court set aside the high court order. It directed the CBI special judge, south Bihar, to pass appropriate orders in the case of Sharma in the light of the five directions contained in the judgment.

In the 1992 judgment in the Antulay case, a Constitution bench had dealt with the right of speedy trial of an accused and laid down 11 guidelines for the purpose.

The apex court noted several other judgments of the court had also recognised the fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused, and added that the five directions in the present judgment would be in addition to the guidelines in the Antulay case.

The first direction is that (1) in cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed. Also whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period, the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for trial of the case.

The second direction is that in such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail for a period not less than half of the maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence, the trial court shall release the accused on bail forthwith on such conditions as it deems fit.

If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed.

Also whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case unless for very exceptional reasons and, in the interest of justice, the court considers it necessary to grant further time to the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the aforesaid time limit.

If the inability for completing the prosecution within the aforesaid period is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, no court is obliged to close the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period in any of the cases covered by clauses (I) to (III).

Where the trial has been stayed by orders of court or by operation of law such time during which the stay was in force shall be excluded from the aforesaid period for closing prosecution evidence.

The directions will be in addition to the directions issued by the apex court in Common Cause versus Union of India (1996) (4) SCC 33, as modified by the same bench.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report