‘Speedy trial, a valuable right of accused’: Delhi HC on convicts’ plea challenging trial court date for sentencing

The three convicts were in judicial custody since 2021 and had been convicted by a trial court for kidnapping and dishonestly receiving stolen property on November 25, 2022. The trial court then adjourned the matter to February 4 for hearing arguments on sentence, asking the convicts to file certain affidavits. It was argued by them that unless the order on sentence was pronounced, they cannot challenge the same and are thus rendered remediless.

The high court bench said, “In case a court takes an accused into custody after pronouncement of judgment and adjourns the matter to a long date for the purpose of hearing the parties on point of sentence, a valuable right of the convict remains suspended as the person can neither challenge the conviction nor seek suspension of sentence and bail till order on sentence is also pronounced. The present case falls into this category, as the learned trial court adjourned the matter after convicting the accused to a date more than 02 months whereas the petitioners in this case were also taken into custody after pronouncement of judgment of conviction.”

The high court was of the view that the trial court totally ignored the “valuable right of speedy trial to the accused”. Observing the right of an accused to a speedy trial, it went on to hold, “It is the duty of the courts to ensure that the rights of the victim and of the accused are balanced. No doubt, striking a balance is a delicate task, however, the canons of criminal justice system so demand that an accused who is in judicial custody as well as any other person facing criminal trial, especially, those who are in judicial custody be given speedy trial by ensuring early hearings”.

Perusing the records, the high court noted that the accused were on bail when the conviction order was passed on November 25, and though they were taken into custody on the same day, neither the reasons for the same nor the fact that they have been taken into judicial custody finds mention in the order sheet.

Observing that this was a serious lapse on the trial court’s part, the high court said, “It is reflected only through this writ petition that the accused persons are in judicial custody, whereas the judicial record of the learned trial court does not reflect the same. The courts have to remain conscious of the fact that taking a person into judicial custody is taking away a valuable right of a person.”

Cancelling the February date, the HC directed the parties to appear before the trial court on January 9 further directing the trial court to take up the matter expeditiously.

The court also ordered the Registrar General of the high court to circulate a copy of this decision to all district courts and the Delhi Judicial Academy to sensitise judges dealing with criminal cases about the need to pay special attention to an accused languishing in jail as an undertrial and is without resort. It was aimed at ensuring that such lapses, which are against the principles of natural justice and the criminal justice system, do not occur.