Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Right to Speedy Trial is an Integral and Essential Part of Fundamental Right to Life

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal judgment the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, underscored the importance of the right to a speedy trial, affirming that it is “an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.” This landmark ruling came in the case of “2023 INSC 1028” where the appellant, Amandeep Singh Saran, challenged the jurisdictional competence of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, to try his case involving various offences under the IPC and other Acts.

The Court delved into a comprehensive analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), to address the legal conundrum surrounding the appropriate judicial forum for trials involving offences punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to 10 years. The judgment critically highlighted the limitations of the punitive jurisdiction of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in cases involving severe penalties.

In their observation, the justices referred to the necessity of a speedy trial as a facet of a fair trial, invoking past precedents such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak. The Court emphasized the significance of conducting trials before a competent court, stating, “The accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction.”

The judgment also paved the way for a new directive, ordering the committal of the appellant’s case to the Court of Session under Section 323 of the Cr.PC. This move ensures that the trial is conducted by a court possessing the jurisdictional competence to try offences under Section 409 IPC, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2023

Amandeep Singh Saran  VS State of Chhattisgarh            

Latest Legal News