Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUBMITTED BY:
Snehashree Hota (2013/BA.LLB/047)
Antim Amlan (2013/BA.LLB/007)
Pradeep Ahirwar (2013/BBA.LLB/026)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II
III INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 7
IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 10
1)
OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 10
2)
3)
HYPOTHESIS.................................................................................................................. 10
4)
SOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 10
2)
3)
1)
B.
2)
b.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1)
b.
c.
d.
3)
a.
b.
c.
VI CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 35
VII
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 38
II
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak 1988 AIR ---------------------------------------------------------------12
Abdul Rahman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 AIR 1531, 1988 SCR Supl. ----------------------31
Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt v. Rashiklal Manilal Shah, (1997) 5 SCC 457. ----------------------33
Babu Singh v. State of UP, 1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCC (1) 579. -----------------------------------31
Bina K Ramani v. State ILR (2010) Supp.(3) Delhi 476. ------------------------------------------18
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 1 -------------------------------------------------10
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1360, 1980 SCC (1) 81. ----------------------30
KadraPehadiya vs. State of Bihar,1981 Cr.L.J. 481 -------------------------------------------------32
Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258.-----------------------------------------27
Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1068. --------------------------------------------------------28
M/S SIL Import, USA v M/S Exim Aides Silk Exporters AIR 1999 SC 1609------------------31
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565 ---19
Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307. ----------------------------------------27
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856 ----------------------------------10
Ranjan Dwivedi v Central Board of Investigation, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 OF 2011. --28
S. P Gupta v President of India AIR 1982 SC 149 --------------------------------------------------11
Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1973 Cri LJ 441, 443, (Raj.) --------------------------------29
State of Maharashtra v Dr.Praful.B.Desai 2003 (3) SCALE 554. ---------------------------------30
State of U.P. v. Naresh and ors, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.674 of 2006 ------------------------29
State through Reference v. Ram Singh and Anr. IV (2014) CCR 174 (Del.)--------------------21
Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 -----------------------------27
STATUTES
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. -------------------------------------------------------------------------31
OTHER AUTHORITIES
III
INTRODUCTION
Fast track court is the important method to clearing the massive backlog cases
pending in the Indian Court. Purpose of the fast track court is to provide justice as
early as possible. Proceedings, cross question examination, witnesses examination
and trial go in speed because if there is a delay in the judgment that amount to justice
denied. It is clear violation of fundament right, even though Indian Constitution
clearly not provides any fundamental rights in relation to speedy trail, but it reflect or
implicit from the Article 21 says that no person is to be deprived of his life or liberty
except in accordance with the procedure established by law.1
The fair procedure cannot to be say if the fast track court cannot guarantee to speedy
trial for the fortitude of the guilt of accused. It cannot say fair procedure if there often
delay in proceedings, trails which may affects or change the evidences and witnesses.
A free and effective judicial system is one of the fundamental features of our
Constitution. In the event that adequate number of judges are not delegated, justice
would not be reachable to the individuals, in this manner decline the basics feature of
the Constitution. It is remarkable that justice delayed is justice denied. On many
occasions the insufficiency in the quantity of judges has unfavourably been remarked
upon. 188th Law Commission Report and Parliamentary Standing Committee along
with judiciary also point out for the establishment of fast track court. There are about
crores of cases pending in the lower courts and 35 lacs cases pending in the High
Court.
In the 11th Finance Commission report2, thousand numbers of Fact Track Court was
established after various recommendation made to Indian Government. First fast track
court was formed for hearing the crimes against female in Delhi on 2nd January 2013.
The main reason to establish these court is to reduce the number of under trials in
jails. There is a prediction that 1.86 lacs under trial cases are pending in the all over
the India. Most of the offender who are in the jails have charged with minor offences
and many of them are in the jail in absence of trail3.
Loosen, Anne. DO FAST TRACK COURTS TEMPER JUDICIAL DELAY IN INDIA? 2010. Jain Books Co. PRINT.
Brief Note on the Scheme of Fast Track Courts, Dept. of Law and Justice, Govt. of India. Retrieved from,
http://doj.gov.in/?q=node/108 Last seen on, 01-04-2015
3
Fast Track Courts, Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Retrieved from,
http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr2001/fmay2001/f010520012.html. Last seen on, 23-03-2015
2
Supra Note 1.
Camerint, M., McDonald, J., Hess, R., University of Wisconsin, Madison & Worldview Productions Film.
(1981). COURTS AND COUNCILS: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN INDIA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
6
Ibid.
7
Recommendations of the 11th Finance Commission, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India.
5
IV
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1) OBJECTIVES
The objective of the research paper is to ascertain how far placing Fast-track court in the
judicial system in India has achieved its purpose as an institution to overcome pre-existing
lacunas.
2) RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Has the purpose for the inception of Fast-track courts been fulfilled?
What are the factors which have either aided or degraded the functioning of Fast-track
courts?
How far the decisions imparted have had a progressive contribution to Criminal
jurisprudence?
What are the basis of Fast-tracking a case?
How does they affect the Rights of the Accused and the quantum of the legality being
followed during the fast-tracking?
3) HYPOTHESIS
Inspite of the criticisms handed out to the fast track courts, they have managed to reduce
burden of pending cases on the judiciary.
The court follows due process model that the Indian inquisitorial system stands by it.
4) SOURCES
The sources used while preparing this case analysis have been categorically described below.
The author has used online web sources like Manupatra, SCC-Online and other news web
blogs to research and discuss the criticality of this case.
CHAPTER I
1) JUDGEMENT IN RELATION TO FAST TRACK COURT
Supreme Court monitoring the functions of Fast Track Court and it was ruled in the
famous case Brij Mohan v Union of India. In the particular case, Supreme Court held
that the scheme of Fast Track should not to be disbanded from the sudden and
continue the Fast Track Court. It was said in the case that Supreme Court is not
perfect place to determine the policies matter but it should be interfered so rarely
because it is matter of protection of the fundamental right. Government should also
appoint retired judges who had good reputation regarding honesty, integrity, and
character wise so he to heard the case wisely. Court directed that the fund allocated
will not withhold in any circumstances and issued certain guideline for the creation of
new fast track court. And central and state government should be informed about the
utilization of allocated money time to time8.
Another leading case P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka9 speedy trail is a
matter of fundamental right and it is the right under Article 21 of Indian Constitution
that every person to get reasonable speedy trail. Constitutional jurisprudence has
tested the true nature and validity of fair procedure and speedy trail. Court should go
one step ahead and state a limit and beyond that limit no criminal case will not
entertained except in certain cases where parties show valid reason to accept criminal
case.
In another case S. P Gupta v President of India court held that it the duty of state to
provide for fair and efficient administration of justice. Promote the public interest
litigation and remove the technical barriers against easy accessibility to promote
justice. Justice can reach to the people who are exploited and deprived by their basic
needs so they enjoy the socio-economic rights granted to them. Ant these right give
real justice and make their life meaningful instead of remaining mere empty hopes.
Under Article 219 of the Indian Constitution of India, is provide in appoint of
8
9
10
Right to speedy trial flowing from article 21 encompasses all the stages like
stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial.
(iii)
Who is responsible for the delay and what factors have contributed towards
delay are relevant factors like nature of crime, numbers of witness and
accused11.
The Criminal Courts ought to practice their accessible forces, for example, those
under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the
privilege to fast trial. A watchful and industrious trial judge can end up being
preferred defender of such directly over any rules. In suitable cases purview of High
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. furthermore, Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
can be conjured looking for fitting help or suitable bearings.
In India, the proportion between the judges and population is very low i.e. 12 number
of judges over one million people but if we compare this with America, they have 50
judges over one million of population. After the Delhi gang rape case, government
amended the law that trial of rape case should be completed within 2 month.
Fast Track Court are function same and follow the normal procedure as follows in
other trial. But government allocated special fund to fast track court to appoint special
judges and may special infrastructure. There is special procedure follow in certain
cases in the fast track court when the accused is below the age of 18 year. Minor
accused should be sent to juvenile justice board and remain in the custody for certain
fix period of time.
2) CURRENT STATUS OF FAST TRACK COURTS IN STATES
TABLE 1: NUMBER OF FAST TRACK COURTS AND THE PENDING CASES IN FTC12S
State
No of FTC
No of cases
transferred until
March 31, 2011
Pending cases
Arunachal Pradesh
4,162
2,502
Bihar`
179
2,39,278
80,173
11
12
20
72,191
16,380
West Bengal
109
1,46,083
32,180
Goa
5,096
1,079
Punjab
15
58,570
12,223
Jharkhand
38
1,10,027
22,238
Gujarat
61
5,37.636
1,03,340
Chattisgarh
25
9,4670
18,095
Meghalaya
1,031
188
Rajasthan
83
1,49,447
26,423
Himachal Pradesh
40,126
6,699
Karnataka
87
2,18,402
34,335
Andhra Pradesh
108
2,36,928
36,975
Nagaland
845
129
Kerala
38
1,09,160
13,793
Mizoram
18,68
233
Haryana
38,359
4,769
Madhya Pradesh
84
3,60,602
43,239
UP
153
4,64,775
53,117
Maharashtra
51
4,23,518
41,899
Tamil Nadu
49
4,11,957
40,621
Uttarakhand
20
98,797
9006
Orissa
35
66,199
5,758
3,059
198
Tripura
5,812
221
Total
1192
3898598
6,05,813
TABLE. 2
State
Number of FTCs
Top 5
Bihar
179
U.P
153
West Bengal
109
Andhra Pradesh
108
Bottom 5
Manipur
Nagaland
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Tripura
Total
1,192
Pending cases
Clearance rate
Top 5
Tripura
5,812
5,591
221
96
Manipur
3,059
2,861
198
94
Orissa
66,199
60,441
5758
91
98,797
89,791
9006
91
Tamil Nadu
4,11,957
3,71,336
40,621
90
Bottom 5
Arunachal
Pradesh
4,162
1,660
2,502
40
Bihar
2,39,278
1,59,105
80,173
66
Assam
72,191
55,811
16,380
77
West Bengal
1,46,083
1,13,903
32,180
78
Goa
5096
4017
1079
79
Total
3,898,598
3,292,785
605,813
84
As given in the table, highest number of the fast track court in Bihar followed by
Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh, where lowest three number of fast
track court are in all the 6 state North East states. Bihar also has the second highest
pending cases in the country. But the most efficient and effective justice delivered by
the Tripura, Manipur has the highest rate of disposing the cases followed by the
Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. And the top bottom states Arunachal Pradesh,
Bihar Assam, West Bengal and Goa has the lowest disposing rate. 3.89 million Cases
has been transferred to the fast track court where only 3.29 million cases have
disposed13.
3) ANALYSES OF FAST TRACK COURT
Procedure of the Fast Track Court is same as normal court and it govern by the
Criminal Procedure Code. But it not allow any of the party to take long date that
means it give rest only for shorter period of time. People are not happy the way these
court are working and called these court as 'fast-track injustice. The standard of these
court goes down because these courts are try to finish the idealistic targets of cases
rather than providing good judgment. They are ordered that they should not to get
13
Fast Track Courts and Pending Cases, Retrieved from, http://www.indiaspend.com/investigations/1200-fasttrack-courts-in-india-but-600000-cases-still-pending. Last seen on, 25-03-2015.
CHAPTER II
1) SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF FAST TRACK COURTS
The famous rape case that occurred in Delhi in 2012 December was also one which
was tried, as per the government's order in a fast track court, following which several
fast track courts were set up for trying cases of rape. This case was tried within a
period of 9 months after which the verdict of conviction was issued. The Department
of Finance and Justice both as decided had resorted to this 'fast track process' in order
to clear backlogs and here out the under trial prisoners who had been in jails beyond
the maximum period ascertained for the committed offence.
A fast track court hears cases on a day to day basis and supposed to function
efficiently. The funding for these courts was received till the year 2011after which the
government ceased its funding. The administration of it is largely dependent on the
respective High court and without the funding from the state governments the
functioning of these courts are paralysed, which has occurred in the present scenario
causing huge disappointment.
14
15
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1367.
Bina K Ramani v. State ILR (2010) Supp.(3) Delhi 476.
16
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565.
Harleen Kaur, IN SUCH A HASTE- THE SYSTEM OF FAST TRACK COURTS IN INDIA, Retrieved from,
http://blog.ipleaders.in/the-system-of-fast-track-courts-india/. Last seen on September 25, 2013
17
William Galo, 'EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIA'S FAST TRACK COURTS QUESTIONED', Retrieved from,
http://www.voanews.com/content/effectiveness_questioned_of_indias_fast_track_courts_seeking_justice_for_ra
pe_victims/1578020.html. Last seen on January 4, 2013.
19
State through Reference v. Ram Singh and Anr. IV (2014) CCR 174 (Del.).
20
Lhendup G. Bhutia, The Case against Fast Track courts, October 12, 2013,
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/the-case-against-fast-track-courts.
21
Asghar Ali Engineer, Lessons of Best Bakery Case, Economic and Political Weekly, July 25, 2003, Vol.38
No. 29, pp. 3046-3047.
Supra Note 1.
23
Law Commission of India. (2005). One hundred eighty eighth report on proposals for constitution of hi-tech
fast-track commercial divisions in high courts. Delhi: Controller of Publications.
24
'Protecting The Witness', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.39 No. 46/47, November 24,2004, p.4948.
CHAPTER III
1) THE BLEMISH OF THE FAST TRACK: FAIR TRIAL
25
MALIK, SURENDRA, AND SUDEEP MALIK. SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE & CRIMINAL
TRIAL. Lucknow: Eastern Book Co, 2011.
26
Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258.
27
Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307.
28
KUMAR, N. (NAGENDRA), 1924- (1997). NATURAL JUSTICE: PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE. Delhi, India: Kanuni
Salah Kendra.
29
Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158.
30
SARMA, B. C. FAIR HEARING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE. Kolkata: Eastern Law House. (2012).
Supre Note 28.
32
SINGH, P. K. HUMAN RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS. Delhi: Swastik Publications. (2011).
33
Ibid.
34
Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1068.
35
Hussnaira Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369.
36
Ranjan Dwivedi v Central Board of Investigation, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 OF 2011.
37
Supra Note 14.
31
c. Presumption of innocence
It is a well-known fact that, there is always presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused in every criminal trial. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon
the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a
finding of the guilt of the accused. This presumption is seen to flow from the Latin
legal principle eincumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, that is, the burden of proof
rests on who asserts, not on who denies.
In State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors38 the Supreme Court observed that, every accused
is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is
a human right subject to the statutory exceptions. The said principle forms the basis of
criminal jurisprudence in India.
38
41
Singh, J. (1997). Right to speedy justice for undertrial prisoners. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1360, 1980 SCC (1) 81.
43
Katar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC 3 569, JT 1994 (2) 423, 1994 SCALE 1.
44
State of Maharashtra v Dr.Praful.B.Desai 2003 (3) SCALE 554.
42
45
Abdul Rahman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 AIR 1531, 1988 SCR Supl. 1
Babu Singh v. State of UP, 1978 AIR 527
47
M/S SIL Import, USA v M/S Exim Aides Silk Exporters AIR 1999 SC 1609
48
GEORGE EYRE AND ANDREW STRAHAN Great Britain.. AN ACT FOR THE MORE SPEEDY TRIAL. London: (1806)
Printed.
49
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.A. 3161 et seq.
50
Babu Singh v. State of UP, 1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCC (1) 579.
46
51
53
VI
CONCLUSION
Thus on close scrutiny when one reads the cases and analyses the criticisms it can
clearly be reflected that the trial by the courts and the inherent procedural
irregularities are only side of the coin the other side is even darker and that is of
'Investigation' where there are serious glitches by the Police. The investigative agency
has a great and one of the most important roles to play in the procedure of justice. The
trial that commences is solely based on the investigation that the prosecution brings to
the forefront which if flawed leads to falling apart of a sound and smooth trial. There
needs to be a timely and sufficient basis provided by the police and prosecution to
bring the whole picture of a case to a court and make the judge completely aware of
the facts and the course taken to ascertain the facts. This forms the basis of an inquiry
that a court conducts hence and then decides upon it.
The other issue which is surfaced is the witnesses turning hostile which again raises
an iota of doubt on the police agencies which have been ineffective providing
protection to the accused. Also the disappointing involvement of the government in
such cases is a big hurdle for the trial to be effectively conducted.
All this brings us to a conclusion that the blaming the court for its merits of holding a
trial does not mean we have caught hold the root of the problem rather its only an
aspect of the many causes. The Investigation, the witness and his or her protection and
the government presence also hold a major role. The story is as if the foundation has
been demolished how a building stand can, similarly if the investigation and the
elements crucial to trial have been swept away how can the trial of the court reach a
sound judgement and secure justice, as is desired of it.
While, there are many cons of the Fast-track court systems which we have discussed
in this paper in a case before the Apex Court, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of
the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice A.S. Anand, Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justice
Doraiswamy Raju, while hearing a case on legitimacy of Fast-track courts at district
levels and on the status of undertrials in various States, regretted that the scheme of
fast track courts, despite its crucial nature, was not brought to the notice of the CJI
before the government made an announcement in that regard. The Judges observed
that the funds released to the State governments to set up fast track courts should have
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROJECT
Page | 35
VII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
JOURNALS
JStor
Heinonline
ONLINE SOURCES
1) www.manupatrafast.in
2) www.indiacode.nic.in
3) www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in