- (1.) This case reveals a sorry state of affairs. How by means of repeated applications on unsustainable grounds, in different jurisdictions and before the Trial Court, or the High Court or the Supreme Court, by bench and forum hunting the accused can stall the disposal of a murder trial of an incident which takes place in 1989 for almost 24 years. In this connection, Mukherjee, J., in Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa, 1995 4 SCC 41 has aptly picked up the threads from Krishna Iyer, J. in Special Courts Bill, Re for looking at the problem of slow motion justice and how it is caused by interlocutory or initial orders at every step in appeals and revisions by supervisory courts: With respect to the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that after a period of twelve years, the matter should not be allowed to be proceeded with we must say that the complainant is certainly not responsible for this delay. The learned Counsel did not even make such a suggestion. Moreover, this contention does not appear to have been raised before the High Court. (The judgment of the High Court is dated 16.6.1992). We do not know who is responsible for this delay. As observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in Special. Courts Bill, 1978, PRESIDENT OF INDIA v. IN RE THE SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978, 1979 1 SCC 380 : (I) It is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal Courts excel in slow motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are heavy, even the service of process is delayed and, still more exasperating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions.... The slow motion becomes much slower motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. FIRs are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At every step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ petitions. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made. And if ever the case reaches the stage of trial after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll: the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears; the prosecution loses interest--the result is an all too familiar one. We are sad to say that repeated admonitions of this Court have not deterred superior Courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages of criminal cases. Such interference should be only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be a matter of course. In the circumstances, we cannot accede to the said contention.
(2.) For expeditious disposal, the aforesaid connected Division Bench and Single Judge matters which arise out of the same cause of action, have been nominated for hearing by a Division Bench headed by one of us (Amar Saran, J.), by the order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated 19.12.2012, and they are being heard and disposed of together by means of this common order. In Crl. Writ Petition No. 16472 of 2012, preferred by the informant Vinod Pal Singh Jadaun a prayer for expeditious disposal of the trial has been made. In Crl. Misc. Application No. 33941 of 2012 Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P., under section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the accused a prayer has been made for reconstructing 4 lost exhibits and for challenging an order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Agra. It may be mentioned that in section 482 Cr.P.C. application, further proceedings of S.T. No. 93 of 1991 State v. Ashok Srivastava and others, was directed to remain stayed by the order of the Single Judge dated 15.10.2012, which was subsequently extended.
(3.) Crl. Transfer Application Nos. 403 of 2012 and 438 of 2012 have been filed by the accused praying for transferring the trial to some place outside Agra. However although comments of the District Judge have been called for and received in these two transfer applications, and a counter-affidavit has also been filed by the informant, but there is no order staying the proceedings before the Trial Court.;