Skip to content


Amrik Singh Gandhi Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantAmrik Singh Gandhi
RespondentPremier Tyres Ltd.
Prior history
K. Lahiri, J.
1. It is a tell-tale story and I do not desire to highlight the inaction of the members of the judiciary. The complaint was lodged on 15-10-1977 and proceedings continued till 20-11-1980 but not a single witness could be examined in the case. Leisurely and pleasurely the complainant took time from this Court. I would observe that a simple case which may be a proper case for civil litigation was kept alive by ingenious methods and accused suffered injustice. There is no alibi nor
Excerpt:
- - 4. upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties i evolve a formula to overcome the chronic disease and direct the trial court to dispose of the case within a month from the date of receipt of the records. it has been agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that my above prescription is the best medicine for early disposal of this case. if for any reason the case cannot be disposed of within a month, the learned magistrate shall report the reasons for failure to the registrar (judicial) of the gauhati high court, who shall, in turn, place the report before this court for necessary action......3-11-77 complainant absent.appearance 23-ll-77 complainant absent.appeaianoe 16-12-77 complainant absent.appearanoe 17-1-78 complainant absent.appearance 12-2-78 complainant absent.appearanoe 8-3-78 complainant absent.appearanoe 6-4-78 complainant absent.appearanoe 1-5-78 complainant absent.appearance 14-8-78 complainant absent.the (aood.) petitioner appeared on off date 1. e. 1-6-78 and went on bail.evidence 19-7-78 complainant present no. evidence was taken.evidence 2-9-78 c.j.m. was slok.evidence 6-11-78 complainant absent.evidence 12-1-79 conrt had no time to take eyidenoe.evidence 28-2-79 accd. no. 1 absent.evidence 21-4-79 complainant absent.evidence 19-6-79 complainant sought adjournment.evidence 17-8-79 complainant sought adjournment. 3-9-79 complainant absent. 30-10-79.....
Judgment:

K. Lahiri, J.

1. It is a tell-tale story and I do not desire to highlight the inaction of the members of the judiciary. The complaint was lodged on 15-10-1977 and proceedings continued till 20-11-1980 but not a single witness could be examined in the case. Leisurely and pleasurely the complainant took time from this Court. I would observe that a simple case which may be a proper case for civil litigation was kept alive by ingenious methods and accused suffered injustice. There is no alibi nor is there any reasonable explanation worth the name for the colossal waste of time and money, harassment and injustice,

2. Pope Paul in opening of the Judicial Year of the Second Roman Rota pointed that delay in dispensing justice is 'in itself an act of injustice.' Slow motion in dispensing justice, that too systematically, must claim our immediate attention towards basic reformation of the structure and procedure of the Court system, if the Judicature is to sustain 'litigative credibility of the community.' Lord Devlin's observations serve as a warning for our Court system;

If our business methods were antiquated as our legal methods, we would be bankrupt country.

The delay in the instant case happened before the nose of the High Court. I feel reluctantly compelled to observe that the command of the procedural laws including Section 483, Criminal P. C requires supervision of the Court from time to time to ensure that there is expeditious and proper disposal of cases by the Magistrates. It calls for constant inspection of the subordinate judiciary from time to time. Perhaps the case could not have been handled in a dilly dally manner had there been any inspection of the Court.

3. The delay in the instant case shows bankruptcy of our judicial system to dispense quick justice, which is the cry of the day. The alibi of the learned Magistrate is not acceptable. It cannot be accepted by any reasonable person. I give hereunder the date-wise history of the case:

16.10.77 Initial deposition was leeorded.

Appearanoe 3-11-77 complainant absent.

Appearance 23-ll-77 complainant absent.

Appeaianoe 16-12-77 complainant absent.

Appearanoe 17-1-78 complainant absent.

Appearance 12-2-78 complainant absent.

Appearanoe 8-3-78 complainant absent.

Appearanoe 6-4-78 complainant absent.

Appearanoe 1-5-78 complainant absent.

Appearance 14-8-78 complainant absent.

The (Aood.) petitioner appeared on off date 1. e. 1-6-78 and went on bail.

Evidence 19-7-78 Complainant present No. evidence was taken.

EvIdence 2-9-78 C.J.M. was slok.

Evidence 6-11-78 Complainant absent.

Evidence 12-1-79 Conrt had no time to take eyidenoe.

Evidence 28-2-79 Accd. No. 1 absent.

Evidence 21-4-79 Complainant absent.

Evidence 19-6-79 Complainant sought adjournment.

Evidence 17-8-79 Complainant sought adjournment.

3-9-79 Complainant absent.

30-10-79 Complainant absent.

31-12-79 Comt was suspended.

10-1-80 C.J.M. on leave.

30.1-80 Complainant absent.

21.2.80 Complainant sought adjournment.

29.2 80 Complainant absent.

11-4-80 Court direoted to oome ready to evidence,

Evidence 17-5-80 Court oould not function.

18-8-80 Misc. order.

5-7-80 Complainant absent.

7-8-80 Court suspended.

6-9-80 Complainant absent.

3-10-80 Complainant abBent.

20-11-80 Fixed (or objections hearing evidence

Is not it enough to show remissness?

4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I evolve a formula to overcome the chronic disease and direct the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a month from the date of receipt of the records. It has been agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties that my above prescription is the best medicine for early disposal of this case.

5. In the result, I remit the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati, who shall transfer the case to some other Magistrate competent to try the same. Thereafter, the case shall be tried and disposed of by the learned Magistrate within a month from the date of receipt of the records. If for any reason the case cannot be disposed of within a month, the learned Magistrate shall report the reasons for failure to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Gauhati High Court, who shall, in turn, place the report before this Court for necessary action.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Place a copy of this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

Send down the records forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //