More trial courts needed’

This judgement was delivered by a three-member bench of Justices K T Thomas, M Sreenivasan and MB Shah. While Justices Thomas and Sreenivasan felt that prosecution should close evidence within three years of framing of charges, Justice Shah observed that in the interest of justice, no time-frame could be fixed for the prosecution to complete its evidence. The bench was hearing an application filed by the CBI seeking clarification on the time-frame fixed by the apex court lastyear for the completion of criminal cases.

Special Public Prosecutor R N Mishra said that the judgement was good as delays in trial would be curtailed. However he opined that the judgement had some lacunae and said that though the prosecution case is closed after three years of framing charges, there can still be delay in the judgement as the court can delay recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which in any case has to be done.

Senior Criminal Lawyer Majeed Memon says that delays in dispensation of criminal justice has been strongly felt in the denial of justice because in our society even pendency of a frivolous prosecution as well as baseless prosecution brings disrepute to the suspect and the suspect has to face undue embarrasment and agony in society. He, however, pointed out that this kind of closure of prosecution evidence within three years for no fault on the part of a genuine complainant is likely to result in the denial ofjustice.

Special Public Prosecutor Vishwas Patil felt that though the judgement may hamper the principles of natural justice, it is welcome considering certain circumstances.

Advocate Clifford Martis feels that the judgement is good in parts. He says that it is acceptable to close a prosecution case within three years but there should be guidelines for the police as well who take much time to file chargesheets and frame charges.

Senior advocate Kishore Joshi feels that such a verdict is not feasible for a city like Mumbai which has voluminous cases. He opines that the judgement has dealt a death blow to the complainant. If the judgement has to be followed in an apt manner, provisions should be made to improve infrastructure, including setting up of more trial courts, and there should be more magistrates hearing criminal cases in order to ensure a timely trial in sessions court, said Joshi.

Special Public Prosecutor Ashwin Modi felt that in the normal run it is not possible to close the prosecutioncase within three years. He was of the view that a sufficient infrastructure has to be created for a speedy and a time bound trial.

Defence advocate K N Tavakkuli who appears in Legal Aid matters (accused who cannot afford advocates fees) felt that the judgement was long over-due. According to him the Apex Court has rightly held that if a case is dragged on for 15 years, then material is lost and that the prosecution witness are unable to remember things that occured 10 or 15 years ago, as a result of which culprits sometimes go free. If the cases are dealt with quickly crime is curbed to a great extent, he added. Tavakkuli said that for this additional trial courts should be set up.

advocate OA Siddique says this will reduce cases which have been pending for many years.