CR.MA/15315/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 15315 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KAMLESHBHAI TULSIBHAI CHAUHAN - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1, Mr. R.C.Kodekar, A.P.P for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 02/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P waives service for respondent no.1. Other respondents are deleted as not necessary parties at this stage. CR.MA/15315/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. Petitioner, the original complainant, who has filed a criminal case involving offences punishable under Sections 302,120 B and 34 of IPC, 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(10)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 has made the grievances that the Criminal Case No. 5312 of 1997, pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, has not even been committed to Sessions Court by the Metro Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9 and the case is only adjourned from time to time since last ten years. There is no dispute about those facts. 3. Upon enquiry, learned A.P.P submitted that the committal proceedings were adjourned from time to time on account of non-production of the muddamal articles and those articles were likely to have been lying in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, an inquiry was required to be made as to why and how the necessary evidence and muddamal articles were not being produced in the Court for further proceedings. The Court concerned also prima facie appears to have been a mute and helpless spectator as if it had no role in dispensing justice within a reasonable time. One of the accused persons has in fact passed away in the meantime. 4. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed and CR.MA/15315/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT Rule is made absolute with the direction that the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned shall immediately take up and conclude the committal proceedings, as expeditiously as practicable and, after the case being committed, the Sessions Court shall give special priority to the case for immediate and expeditious trial in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. The Court concerned shall treat the case as one pending since the year 1997 and give priority accordingly. 5. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to hold an inquiry into the reasons why committal proceedings have remained pending in the Metropolitan Court for ten long years and who, if any one, were responsible for inordinate delay and the steps taken in that regard. The report shall be submitted to this Court on or before 26.12.2008. 6. The respondent State is directed to hold a preliminary inquiry, to be conducted by an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police and submit a short report as regards the causes of the muddamal articles being not produced in the Court and whether learned A.P.P in charge has taken any steps for expediting the production of muddamal articles. If any particular officer under the Assistant CR.MA/15315/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT Commissioner of Police is found to have delebrately caused the delay, what steps are taken or proposed to be taken, shall also be stated in the report on or before 26.12.2008 and this matter shall be listed for receiving the reports and for making further orders, if required. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the petition is disposed subject to the above directions. Sd/- (D.H.WAGHELA,J.) Jyoti