Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gangani Resorts Pvt. Ltd., was the accused in Criminal Case No. OA/641/2003/C pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Mapusa, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's main grievance was that the trial court had been routinely adjourning the case, even when the complainant and his advocate were absent, showing undue leniency to the complainant. The petitioner submitted that this caused harassment and inconvenience. The High Court, upon examining the transcribed record, agreed that the trial court had been more than liberal in granting adjournments. The court noted that the complainant's counsel informed that the accused had also filed a Revision Application against the order dated 14th June 2005, which was the subject matter of the petition, but the petitioner's advocate stated that the revision had been withdrawn. The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the trial court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Speedy Trial - Adjournments - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The petitioner-accused sought direction for expeditious trial due to routine adjournments granted to the complainant despite absence - Court found that the trial court had been more than liberal in granting adjournments causing inconvenience to the accused - Held that it is in the interest of justice to direct the trial court to complete the trial within sixty days (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's routine adjournments despite complainant's absence caused harassment to the accused and whether a direction for expeditious trial should be issued.
Final Decision
Rule made absolute. The trial court (J.M.F.C., Mapusa) is directed to complete the trial of Criminal Case No. OA/641/2003/C as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Speedy trial
- Adjournments
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 72
Criminal Writ Petition No. 24 of 2005
Ms. Archana A.N. Gaunekar for Petitioner, Shri V. Menezes for Respondent No.1, Shri S.N. Sardessai for Respondent No.2
Gangani Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Wibro Construction Company, State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking direction for expeditious trial in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Direction to the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously and to stop routine adjournments.
Filing Reason
The trial court was routinely adjourning the case even when the complainant and his advocate were absent, causing harassment to the accused.
Previous Decisions
The accused had filed a Revision Application against the order dated 14th June 2005, which was withdrawn on the day of hearing.
Issues
Whether the trial court's practice of granting routine adjournments despite complainant's absence amounts to harassment of the accused?
Whether a direction for expeditious trial should be issued?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The trial court has been routinely adjourning the case and showing undue leniency to the complainant, causing inconvenience and harassment to the accused.
Respondent No.1: The accused had also filed a Revision Application against the order dated 14th June 2005.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's routine adjournments despite the complainant's absence caused harassment to the accused, and it is in the interest of justice to direct expeditious completion of the trial within a fixed time frame.
Judgment Excerpts
What has been transcribed by the petitioner in the petition does to a great extent show that the learned J.M.F.C. conducting the trial of the said case has been more than liberal in granting adjournments to the complainant and which to a great extent must have certainly caused inconvenience and/or harassment to the accused.
Considering the manner the trial is proceeding it would be in the interest of justice to issue a direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Mapusa to complete the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
Procedural History
The petitioner (accused) filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 24 of 2005 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking a direction for expeditious trial. The accused had also filed a Revision Application against the order dated 14th June 2005, which was withdrawn on the date of hearing. The High Court heard the petition and issued directions on 18th August 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
