IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 716 of 2000() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/07/2000 IN CMP 1107 /2000 IN CC.83/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA. ........................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ PUSHPANJANAN PLLAI S/O.VASU PILLAI, ANJANALAYAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, WANDOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUYOR MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.716 of 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.83/95 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Clalss-II, Perintalmanna. He is facing prosecution for offence u/s.408 IPC. While the trial was in progress he filed a petition as CMP.1107/2000 seeking an order for discharge in the light of the decision in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1998 SC 3522). The learned Magistrate arrived a finding that the delay for the trial was not at the instance of the prosecution alone. Whereas the absence of accused in the court along with other things beyond the control of the prosecution had also contributed a lot in delaying the trial. Consequently the petition was dismissed. Assailing that order this revision petition was filed. 2. The apex court in Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2002 SC 1856 ) overruled Raj Deo Sharma's case and held as follows: (1) The dictum in A.R. Antuly's case is correct and still holds the field. CRRP.716/2000 2 (2) The positions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay's case, adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions. (3) The guidelines laid down in A.R.Antulay's case are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a strait-jacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact-situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made. (4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Clause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Clause Case (I), Raj Deo Sharma Case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed in those directions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R.Antulay's case and decide whether the trial or proceeding have become so inordinately delays as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any Court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and a mandatorily obliging the court of terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused. In the light of the above dictum laid down by the apex CRRP.716/2000 3 court, I find no merit in the revision petition. The order impugned is not vitiated by any error, illegality or impropriety to be rectified in exercise of revisional powers. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate shall speedup the trial and dispose of the case within four months. Forward the records forthwith. (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) sou