Acharya Punyadhishanand Avdhoot vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Facts
The applicant, Acharya Punyadhishanand Avdhoot, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking a direction for the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Jhansi, to expeditiously decide Gangster Sessions Trial (GST) No. 48 of 2009. The trial pertains to an offense under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, arising from Case Crime No. 2219 of 2008, registered at PS Prem Nagar, District Jhansi. The charge sheet was submitted on April 1, 2009, and cognizance was taken on May 13, 2009. Charges were framed on April 27, 2010. The applicant argued that the trial has been pending for approximately nine years, violating his right to a speedy trial.
Held
The Court held that the applicant, being an accused, has a right to a speedy trial. Considering the facts and circumstances, including the trial's pendency since 2009 (approximately nine years), it was deemed expedient to ensure its early conclusion. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial and conclude it within six months, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. This direction was to be followed, provided there was no legal impediment, referencing the principle laid down in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015). Furthermore, the Court directed that witnesses who do not appear on the first summons should have their attendance secured through coercive processes, and once a witness appears, they should not be discharged until their evidence is concluded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Jhansi, should be directed to expedite the conclusion of Gangster Sessions Trial (GST) No. 48 of 2009, considering the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Section 482 CrPC and the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015)? Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant contended that the trial has been pending since 2009, with charges framed in 2010, and has lingered for nearly nine years, thus infringing upon his fundamental right to a speedy trial. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal. Arguments for the Opposite Party (State of U.P.): The judgment records no specific arguments from the State's counsel beyond their appearance and representation. However, the court's directions imply that the State did not oppose the principle of expeditious trial.
Sections Cited
Section 482, Section 309
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15241 of 2018 Applicant :- Acharya Punyadhishanand Avdhoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikram Singh Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Avdhoot & Ors.), under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act arising out of Case Crime No.2219 of 2008, PS Prem Nagar, District Jhansi expeditiously within the time frame as may be stipulated by this Court.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the charge was framed in this case on 27.04.2010 but the trial is lingering on. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the charge sheet was submitted on 01.04.2009 and cognizance was taken on 13.05.2009 by the Special Judge, Gangsters Act. T
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.