Blog

The point in the issue was very limited and purely involved a question of law. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew in the matter of Shri Sushan Das Vs. State of Meghalaya [WP(C) No. 292 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were associated with a mandamus writ petition sought by the petitioner for a direction to issue to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, to pass proper orders under Section 148/326/506/307/302/34 IPC of the PDPP Act, 1984 to the Court of competent jurisdiction. A quick trial was prayed by the petitioner. The counsel representing the petitioner stated that the said case FIR was the petitioner was arrested for the said case and was taken into judicial custody for a considerable time and was released after bail. The Senior Counsel stated that even after the filing of the charge sheet the committal order was not passed. 

Further, the Senior Counsel submitted that the case was pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate which eventually caused infringement of the petitioner’s rights for a speedy trial. The counsel for the State submitted that the Court of Judicial Magistrate should act in accordance with the law. 

The Hon’ble Court after considering all the facts and submission held that “… Without further dwelling on any other aspect such as the right to speedy trial which has been time and again reiterated and emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments and accepted to be an intrinsic aspect of the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the directions to the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sohra to pass appropriate orders in GR Case No. 8 (6) of 2020 in accordance with Section 209 Cr. P.C. as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu