Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 16-12-2020 in case of petitioner name Sanjai Tiwari vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & A
| |

Supreme Court Rules on Locus Standi and Expediting Criminal Trial in Corruption Case

The case revolves around the appeal filed by Sanjai Tiwari questioning the order of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial concerning charges of fraud, forgery, and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant contested the decision, arguing that the application filed by Respondent No. 2, a third party, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was not maintainable. The case raises significant questions regarding the locus standi of third parties in criminal trials and the role of the High Court in directing the expeditious conclusion of such trials.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Sanjai Tiwari, was implicated in an FIR filed by the Vigilance Department of Uttar Pradesh in 2006. The charges include serious offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, such as fraud, forgery, and misuse of official position. The case arose from a complaint filed by R.K. Choudhary, leading to an investigation and, eventually, the filing of a charge-sheet in May 2020. The appellant had filed several writ petitions challenging the FIR and the investigation, seeking to delay the proceedings.

On August 4, 2020, a social activist and advocate, Respondent No. 2, filed an application before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., urging the court to expedite the trial. Respondent No. 2 argued that the delay in the trial was caused by the accused’s actions and that the case should be concluded swiftly due to its public importance. The High Court, after hearing the application, directed the trial court to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and ensure no unnecessary adjournments.

High Court’s Order

The Allahabad High Court’s order directed the trial court to expedite Criminal Trial No. 520 of 2020 and conclude it at the earliest, on a day-to-day basis, without granting unnecessary adjournments. The court observed that the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act required urgent attention due to their impact on society and public administration. However, the appellant contended that the order was passed in the absence of his knowledge and that Respondent No. 2 had no standing to file the application.

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant raised several points against the High Court’s order:

  • Locus Standi: The appellant argued that Respondent No. 2 had no locus standi to file the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as they were not a party to the criminal proceedings. The appellant contended that the High Court should not have entertained the application of a third-party social activist.
  • Delay in Filing the Application: The appellant pointed out that Respondent No. 2 filed the application only after significant delay, and there was no urgency that warranted immediate intervention by the court.
  • Excessive Judicial Intervention: The appellant contended that the High Court’s directive to expedite the trial could undermine the fairness of the trial process and infringe upon the rights of the accused.

Respondent No. 2’s Arguments

Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, defended the application and argued:

  • Public Interest: Respondent No. 2 emphasized that they filed the application in public interest to ensure that the trial was not delayed any further. They argued that the appellant’s actions had prolonged the trial and that the trial needed to be expedited to ensure justice for society.
  • Prolonged Delay: Respondent No. 2 highlighted the significant delay in the investigation and trial, which had lasted for over 14 years. They argued that such a delay was detrimental to the administration of justice.
  • High Court’s Jurisdiction: Respondent No. 2 contended that the High Court had the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the trial court to expedite proceedings in a case involving serious offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court’s decision, focusing on the following points:

  • Locus Standi of Third Parties: The Court agreed with the appellant’s argument that Respondent No. 2, being a third-party social activist, had no locus standi to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case where they were not a party. The Court referred to the case of Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1993), where it was held that only the parties directly involved in the case could raise issues related to the proceedings.
  • Role of the High Court in Criminal Trials: The Court emphasized that the High Court’s role in directing the expeditious conduct of criminal trials is limited to ensuring that the prosecution and the trial court fulfill their duties. It observed that third-party intervention could compromise the fairness of the trial.
  • Delay in the Trial: While acknowledging the significant delay in the trial, the Court noted that the prosecution and the trial court were responsible for ensuring the trial was concluded promptly. The Court stated that Respondent No. 2’s intervention was not justified and should not have been entertained by the High Court.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court observed:

“Respondent No. 2 has no locus standi to file the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court’s order to expedite the criminal trial cannot be sustained, as it was not filed by the prosecution or a party directly involved in the case.”

The Court also noted that it is the responsibility of the prosecution and the trial court to ensure that criminal trials, particularly those involving corruption, are conducted expeditiously. The Court emphasized that:

“The trial courts must ensure that the trial is conducted on a day-to-day basis and without unnecessary delays. However, the application filed by Respondent No. 2 was not appropriate, and the High Court’s order to expedite the trial was not warranted.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that third parties, particularly public interest litigants, cannot intervene in criminal trials unless they have a direct stake in the proceedings. The Court also reaffirmed that it is the duty of the prosecution and trial court to ensure the timely conduct of trials, especially those involving serious charges like corruption, without undue interference from unrelated parties.


Petitioner Name: Sanjai Tiwari.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sanjai Tiwari vs The State of Uttar P Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts