State of Bihar - Respondent
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, Mr. Manoj Goel, Advocate, Mr. S. Ray, Advocate, Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate Mr. S.A. Syed, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Altaf Ahmed, A.S.G., Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocates. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 21 and 136 - Speedy trial - Direction as to expeditious disposal of trial is likely to be hampered as one of the co-accused raised an objection as to jurisdiction of Sessions court - Objection repelled and revision before High Court pending - If petitioner can satisfy that there is no reasonable prospect of implementation of that direction given by High court (to finish the trial within a period of 9 months) it is open to him to approach the High court afresh - Also requested to High Court to dispose of revision so that direction contained in impugned order will have its full effect. [Paras 1 and 3]ORDER
1. Shri R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel submitted that the direction given in the impugned judgment for expeditious disposal of the trial is likely to be hampered as one of the co-accused raised an objection that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to try him as he is a juvenile. That objection was repelled by the Sessions Court and that accused preferred a revision petition (Criminal Revision No. 713/1999) before the High Court which is reported to be pending. 2. Learned senior counsel requests permission for the petitioners to approach the High Court afresh. If he can satisfy that there is no reasonable prospect of implementation of that direction given by the High Court (to finish the trial within a period of 9 months) it is open to him to approach the High Court afresh. 3. We request, the High Court to dispose of the Criminal Revision No. 713/1999, if possible, within a month, so that, the direction contained in the impugned order will have its full effect. 4. With the above observations SLPs are disposed of. Orders accordingly.