Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to speedy trial – Of victim – Victim has a right to speedy trial too – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.12 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346 – Accused persons filed application before Additional District and Sessions Judge, to keep the proceedings in Session Trial No.934 of 2023 inter alia u/s.302, IPC in abeyance on the ground that the very same accused persons were also accused in the proceedings under the Gangsters Act and the trial under the Gangsters Act should have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused – Dismissed – Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Revision, High Court directed that Session Trial No.934 of 2023 be kept in abeyance and the Special Judge was directed to expedite the proceedings of Gangsters Session Trial – Interference with: Held: Art.21 guarantees right to speedy trial – This right is not only the prerogative of the accused but is also a valuable right of the victim and any inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, could have a deleterious effect on the society in general – If the interpretation canvassed by the respondent-accused is accepted, it will render s.12 of the Gangsters Act ultra vires Art.21 of the Constitution of India – It will also give a handle to the accused to delay all other cases under the pretext that the proceedings are pending under the Gangsters Act – Tremendous injustice will result as with every day’s delay, preservation of evidence will become a challenge – Witnesses will be that much less forthcoming and even if they are, with passage of time, human memory would have begun to fade – Such interpretation which will make a mockery of the judicial process cannot be countenanced – The purpose behind s.12 was not to freeze the other proceedings against the accused till proceedings under the Gangsters Act were concluded – The purpose was only to indicate that in the event of clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act were to get priority – Trial Judge, on 03.03.2025, while dismissing the application of the accused, rightly observed that charges had been framed on 26.02.2024 and by 08.01.2025, the prosecution had completed its evidence and statements u/s.313, CrPC of the accused were scheduled to be recorded – It was at this stage, on 18.01.2025, that the accused filed application seeking that the trial be kept in abeyance pending conclusion of trial in the Gangsters Act – The trial Judge, on 03.03.2025, rightly noticed that when the application was rejected, the trial under the Gangsters Act was yet to begin since chargesheet had just been submitted – There was no issue of clash of dates warranting the application of s.12 of the Gangsters Act – High Court erred in reversing the order of the trial Judge – Order of High Court is untenable, set aside – Furthermore, pursuant to interim order dated 13.04.2026, Session Trial No.934 of 2023 has already concluded and the accused stand convicted – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346. [Paras 19, 23, 25-27] Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.12 – Trial by Special Courts to have precedence – Object of s.12, stated. [Paras 16-19] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346 – Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings – Mandate of s.346 – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.12:
Held: s.346 mandates to continue proceedings from day-to-day basis until all witnesses in attendance are examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded – Moreover, stringent conditions are imposed for adjournment of proceedings – Harmoniously reading s.12 of the Gangsters Act with s.346 of the BNSS (s.309 of CrPC), the conclusion is that all that s.12 of the Gangsters Act contemplates is that, in the event of a clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would be given preference – High Court in spite of noticing the pronouncement of this Court in Dharmendra Kirthal and in spite of observing that it was never the intention of the legislature when it enacted the Gangsters Act to stop the proceedings in the case other than the Gangsters Act and that s.12 was intended only to provide a solution when there was a clash of dates, still in the concluding paragraph recorded a totally contradictory finding and directed the Session Trial No.934 of 2023 to be kept in abeyance – Order of the High Court is untenable, set aside. [Para 21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.