The apex court held that just because an accused has been elected as an MLA, it cannot be a testament to his good image in general public.
Credit: iStockPhoto
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said just because an accused has been elected as an MLA, it cannot be a testament to his good image in general public.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the trial court's order allowing withdrawal of prosecution of accused, Chhote Singh, since he got elected as a ruling party MLA from Uttar Pradesh in 2007 in a 1994 double murder case.
"This case presents concerning circumstances wherein politically influential individuals, accused of a double murder in broad daylight, have evaded trial for almost three decades," the bench said in its judgment on July 15.
Acting on a plea filed by Shailendra Kumar Srivastava, son of one of the deceased, the bench expressed serious concern over "the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, faced significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice".
The appellant was aggrieved with Allahabad High Court's repeated adjournment in 2012 criminal revision petition against the order allowing withdrawal of prosecution.
Going by the facts of the case, the bench said, the HC permitted the accused persons to deploy dilatory tactics to delay their trial. The HC also failed to ensure that the justice system is set in motion and is not halted due to the lamentable specter of political influence, it said.
"The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings. The undue influence wielded by powerful individuals further exacerbates the situation, raising concerns about fairness and impartiality," the bench said.
The apex court examined the matter on merits with regard to application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, instead of sending it back to the High Court.
"The resultant stagnation in trial proceedings is deeply troubling. Given the gravity of the situation and the risk of miscarriage of justice, urgent action is warranted," the bench said.
The court noted the trial court in passing order on May 19, 2012 adopted casual approach by allowing withdrawal of prosecution.
"Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation," the bench said.
Contrary to the trial court’s view, the court added, such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest. The trial court's reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people, the bench said.
In the case, the court asked the High Court to promptly decide pending applications by remaining nine accused, who sought parity with the ex MLA, to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised- due to political influence or any other extraneous factors.