Allahabad High Court Issues Directive to Prevent Unnecessary Delays in Criminal Trials
In a significant ruling aimed at expediting the judicial process, the Allahabad High Court has issued a clear directive to trial courts across Uttar Pradesh. The court has mandated that these courts must not defer the framing of charges in criminal trials simply because an accused has filed a revision petition or appeal against an order rejecting their discharge application, unless a specific stay order is in place from a higher court.
Court Expresses Concern Over Recurring Trend of Adjournments
Justice Chawan Prakash, who presided over the case, passed this order while dismissing a petition filed by Avanish Chandra Srivastava, a retired government employee. Srivastava is an accused in a cheating case dating back to 2004. In its order dated January 8, the high court highlighted a troubling pattern where trial courts frequently adjourn the framing of charges or delay final hearings. This is often done under the pretext that a criminal revision or writ petition is pending before the high court, even when no stay order has been issued to halt the proceedings.
The court firmly stated, "It is a settled provision of law that merely filing of criminal revision or criminal appeal against any order, does not amount that the proceedings of the said court has been stayed." This observation underscores the legal principle that the filing of appeals alone should not impede the progress of trials.
Statutory Duty of Trial Courts Emphasized
The petitioner had challenged an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Kaushambi, which rejected his application for discharge. In response, the high court elaborated on the responsibilities of trial courts. It emphasized that these courts have a "statutory duty" to frame charges if a discharge plea is rejected, provided there is no specific stay order from a superior court.
The court further clarified the procedural obligations under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It noted that if a sessions court or magistrate finds no grounds to discharge an accused, then unless the order rejecting the discharge application is both challenged and stayed by a higher court, these courts are legally bound to proceed with framing charges. Specifically, this duty is outlined under:
- Section 228 of the CrPC for sessions courts
- Section 240 of the CrPC for magistrate courts
This directive aims to prevent unnecessary delays in the justice system, ensuring that criminal trials move forward efficiently without being bogged down by procedural technicalities. By reinforcing the statutory duties of trial courts, the Allahabad High Court seeks to uphold the integrity and timeliness of legal proceedings in Uttar Pradesh.
