P RAMA CHANDRA RAO VS STATE OF KARNATKA : CASE SUMMARY
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in P Rama Chandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 held that prescribing an outer limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings is not permissible.
FACTS OF THE CASE
P Rama Chandra Rao was working as electrical superintendent in Manglore City Corporation. He was found to have amassed assets disproportionate to his income. Chargesheet was filed and accused was granted bail. Charges were framed but trail could not start for a period of two years. The Accused was acquitted in light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma (II) Vs. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 604. An appeal was filed by State of Karnataka before the Supreme Court. Appeal was allowed the High Court without even issuing notice to the accused. The accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
It was found that there is difference of opinion between judgment of the Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 33, Common Cause Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 775, Raj Deo Sharma Vs State of Bihar (1998) 7 SCC 507, Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (1999) 7SCC604 and judgment of Supreme Court in Abdul Rahman Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayan & Others ( 1992 ) 1 SCC 225. The matter was finally heard by seven judge bench of the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Court noted that Article 21 confers fundamental rights on every person not to be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Such procedure has to just, fair and reasonable. In Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar (1980 ) 1SCC81 it was held that right to speedy trial flows from Article 21.
In Abdul Rahman Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayan & Others ( 1992 ) 1 SCC 225 it was urged before the Supreme Court that time limits should be prescribed for criminal trials otherwise exposition of law in Maneka Gandhi and Hussainara Khatoon will remain only an illusion and platitude. The Supreme Court issued certain guidelines in Abdul Rahman Antulay but refused to fix any time line for trial of offences.
The Supreme Court in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma Cases had fixed certain time limits for different category of offences for conduct of trails. If trails were not conducted within stipulated timeline, the trail has to be terminated and accused has to be acquitted or discharged.
The Supreme Court disapproved the view taken in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma Cases. Supreme Court observed that bar of limitation gives rise to greater problems like scuttling trial without adjudication, stultifying access to justice and giving easy exit from the portals of justice. The Supreme Court overruled view taken in Common Cause and Rajbir Sharma Cases on two grounds.
Firstly, the Court held that such directions tantamount to judicial legislation. The Court held that such directions can not be given by judicial directives and are not within the area of law making power of constitutional courts however liberally Article 32, 21, 141 and 142 of the Constitution may liberally be interpreted. The dividing line is fine but perceptible. Courts can declare the law, they can interpret law, they can remove obvious lacunae and fill the gaps but they cannot entrench upon in the field of legislation properly meant for the Legislature.
Secondly those directions are contrary to doctrine of binding precedents as they are in conflict with Abdul Rahman Antulay judgment.
The Supreme Court held that dictum in A R Antulay is correct. The Court also held that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.
__________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.