Volume : 2, Issue : 5, MAY 2016

ROLE OF LAWYERS FOR SPEEDIER CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Prof (Dr) Mukund Sarda

Abstract

Article : Download PDF

Cite This Article

Article No : 6

Number of Downloads : 962

References

1. This is almost similar to US Supreme Court ruling in Steel Seizure case which states:
‘The essence of free Govt. is to live to leave by no man’s leave, underneath the protection
of law. It shall be the Govt. of laws and not of men’.
2. Art 21 of the Constitution provides thus: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law’.
3. Constitutional safeguards are provided under Art 22 (2) to 22(7) of the Constitution
which are the minimum safeguards, though the law relating to Preventive Detention
itself has been viewed as opposed to a democratic society.
4. See for details the procedures prescribed by the code of criminal procedure.
5. Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC P.597.
6. Mohd Hussain Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, 2012 Cr LJ SC P.4537.
7. Art 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
courts with in the territory of India.
8. Art 144 provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act
in aid of the supreme court.
9. Art 21 may be amended to incorporate this right.
10. This was lucidly pointed by Dr. J.N.Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India, 49th Edition
2012, P.274-275.
11. Zahira Habibullah H.Shaikh & others Vs. State of Gujarath & others, AIR 2004, SC
P.3114, hereinafter referred to as ‘Best Bakery Case’.
12. AIR 2001 SC P.3372.
13. ‘Failure of justice’ appears as an etymological Chameleon ’as per Lord Diplock in
Town Investments Ltd. Vs. Dept. of Environment.’
14. Sec 461 deals with irregularities which vitiate the proceedings.
15. Sec 462 proceedings in a wrong place will not vitiate the proceedings unless results in
‘failure of justice’.
16. Sec 465(1) Cr Pc provides no finding, sentence or order, passed by the court shall be
reversed unless there is a ‘failure of justice’.
17. Shamem Saheb M.Multtani Vs. state of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC P.931.
18. AIR 1992 SC P.1701.
19. Sec 309 deals with the powers of the court to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
20. Sec 311 deals with the powers of the court to summon material witness or examine any
person present I n the court.
21. Sec 258 deals with the powers of the court to stop proceedings in certain cases.
22. See Sec 482 Cr Pc.
23. See for details Art 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. Tyron Vs. Nazarat Vs. State of Goa (1994) Suppl(3) SCC P.321. See also Khatri Vs.
State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC P.928 and Sukh Das Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal
Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC P.991.
25. S.Guin & others Vs. Grindlay’s Bank Ltd., AIR 1986 SC P.289.
26. Gopi Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC P.609.
27. See Note 19, 20, 21 & 22.
28. A.R.Atulay & others Vs. R.S.Nayak, AIR 1992 SC P.1701. See also Hussainara
Khatoon & others Vs. Home Secretary, Bihar, AIR 1979 SC P.1360 and Raghvir Singh
Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 Sc P.149.
29. State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh AIR 1995 SC P.975.
30. Phoolan Devi Vs. State of MP (1996)11 SCC P.19.
31. Best Bakery Case. Supra.
32. Art. 38A of the Directive Principles makes it obligatory for the State to provide free
legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes to ensure that opportunities for social justice
are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.
33. See for details Sec 303 Criminal Procedure Code.
34. Machander Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC P.702.
35. Mohd Hussain, Supra, Para 24 Page 4543.
36. Kartar Singh Vs. State of Pubjab, 1994 Cr L.J. SC P.3139.