Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently observed that while an attempt to expedite the processing of criminal cases needs to be appreciated, it should be borne in mind that it should not be at the cost of discouraging the defence from putting forth their case.

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said, “…hasty justice is not a preferred alternative to delayed justice…while considering the necessity of elimination of delay in the disposal of criminal cases, due care needs to be exercised to prevent undue speed or haste in the matter of disposal, because it would result into unfair play”.

Court emphasised that the right to a speedy trial is usually claimed by the party facing legal proceedings, seeking a swift resolution to the case, a protection guaranteed by law. However, if the same party seeks trial postponement, it may be viewed as a tactic to gain the personal liberty availed pending the trial.

“Therefore, a balanced view needs to be taken after a thorough analysis between the scope for speedy trial and the intention of the party who pleads for postponement,” said the bench.

The observations were made in plea for case transfer. The petitioner, who was accused of the offences punishable under Sections 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sought transfer of his case from the court of Additional District Sessions Judge, Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai to some other competent Special Court for CBI Cases in Chennai.

The petitioner alleged that on the ground of ill health, he made requests for adjournments before the current trial court as he could not pursue the matter amidst his poor health condition, however, the trial was proceeded without there being a fair chance for him to cross-examine the witnesses.

Thereafter as well, the petitioner moved a petition under Section 309 CrPC before the Trial Court seeking postponement of the case for two months but the same was also dismissed by the Trial Court. The trial court opined that the petition was filed only to delay the trial.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved the high court seeking case transfer to some other court.

The high court was apprised by the counsel for the petitioner that he had been diagnosed with a serious ailment and was undergoing chemotherapy and surgeries as was evident from the medical recorded produced.

He contended that the petitioner had sought a reasonable time to defend his case in proper perspective, however, the same has been misconceived by the Trial Court as a delaying tactics.

He submitted that the petitioner now apprehends that he cannot face a fair trial and thereby, in the interest of just, the case has to be transferred to some other competent Special Court for CBI Cases in Chennai.

The single judge bench referred to Section 309 CrPC which provides the power of the court to postpone or adjourn the proceedings.

It said, “No doubt, the above legal provision puts a check on the postponement of the case unnecessarily, however, it does not totally ban such action. A reading in between the lines would make it clear that postponement of the case can be made by recording reasons/circumstance therefore, which, if found beyond the control of the party seeking such postponement”.

Court noted that in the case at hand, the petitioner had sought for such postponement on medical ground and when the same was declined by the Trial Judge, the petitioner developed an apprehension that his interest could be prejudiced if the trial was proceeded before the same Judicial Officer.

Court opined that the remarks of the Judicial Officer reflected that he was guided only by the sole intention of speedy trial without any bias and was slightly overlooking the genuineness of the plea of the petitioner for postponement of the trial.

Therefore, considering the balance of convenience, the high court, in the interest of justice, held it proper to withdraw and transfer the case of the petitioner.

Court, accordingly, ordered for withdrawal of the petitioner’s case from the current trial court and transferred the case to the court of XIV Additional Judge (Special Court for CBI Cases), Chennai.

Case Title: Dr.A.Paramasivan Petitioner vs State and Another