STATE OF M P Vs. GANGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'undue Haste', on the part of the trial Court, in closing the trial and in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, is ex-facie apparent from the order-sheets of the trial Court, and the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4-6-1988 within 5 days of the filing of the chargesheet, against the accused on 30-5-1988.

(2.) THE incident, in question, took place on 14-4-1988. The charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 30-5-1988, and the charges against them for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 435/34 Indian Penal Code were framed the same day. The case then was fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 4-6-1988. Though there was no representation on behalf of the prosecution/state on 4-6-1988, but as one prosecution witness Samar Bahadur appeared himself, the trial Court, after recording his evidence, closed the prosecution case and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal within 1 1/2 months of the commission of the offence.

(3.) 'justice Delayed is Justice Denied' and 'justice Hurried is Justice Buried' are the two 'age Old Sayings' which reflect extreme situations which no 'judicial System' can afford, as both are bound to obstruct the 'natural Flow' of 'fountain of Justice'. For an 'ideal' course, the Courts are to strike a balance between these two situations.