Accused has right to speedy trial, but must face consequences if responsible for delay: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently declined to quash a case that has been awaiting trial for nearly 22 years, after noting that it has to be examined if the accused themselves were responsible for the delay (SS Govindaraj v. State)..The prosecution cannot commence the trial if the accused make a determined effort to scuttle the trial process by alternatively absconding themselves, the Court said. In such a scenario, the accused will have to face the consequences of delay in the trial process, it added..Justice CV Karthikeyan was dealing with a case of alleged misappropriation of about ₹42 crore by the Anubhav group of companies, wherein charges had not been framed since 1999. .The petitioner was a former Director of Anubhav Plantations Limited who had served in this capacity between 1995 and 1997. Apart from the delay in starting the trial, the petitioner also submitted that he had been acquitted in a related case. .Justice Karthikeyan acknowledged that the case has been pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for almost 22 years. All the same, he opined that it must be examined if the accused were directly or indirectly responsible for the delay. "I do agree that every accused has a right of speedy trial and unwarranted delay violates the fundamental right guaranteed Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But at the same time, it must also be examined whether the accused were either directly or indirectly the reasons for such delay," the Court said. .The Court took note of the prosecution's claim that there were various factors that contributed to delays, including the death of some of the accused, as well as the fact that some of the accused were absconding while others had gone abroad. .The judge further factored in the magnitude of the alleged offence in declining to quash the case, "even though, the calendar case has been pending for a considerable number of years.".The High Court, however, has directed the Magistrate to carefully examine if there was a deliberate attempt by the accused to absent themselves from appearing before the Court. Further, the Magistrate was asked to examine the possibility of splitting up the case and fixing a schedule for framing charges against those accused who are present and appearing. .A schedule may then be fixed for the examination of witnesses, the High Court suggested. The trial court was further directed to proceed with the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same at the earliest. .Pertinently, the judge added that the Magistrate should ensure that "on no account should the Court be a reason for grant of adjournment or that the prosecution should be a reason for grant of adjournment." .With this, the plea before the High Court was dismissed..[Read Order]