The Madras High Court Bench here has expressed serious concern over trial in corruption cases pending for decades together due to paucity of Deputy Legal Advisors (DLA) to conduct the trial in lower courts designated to hear cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Refusing to quash a corruption case pending trial for over 14 years, Justice S. Nagamuthu directed the State government to create 17 posts of DLA, in addition to 15 posts in existence at present, within three months and ensure that one DLA was appointed for every designated court in the State.
He also directed the High Court Registry to send necessary proposals immediately to the State government for designating specific courts under the PCA since it was reported to the court that trials in some corruption cases could not commence for want of notifications to be issued by the State.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Undue delay infringing upon the fundamental right to speedy trial is undoubtedly a ground to quash the proceedings unless the delay had occurred on account of the act of accused… But going by the gravity of the offences allegedly committed, I am not inclined to quash the case.
“Corruption is a menace to society like cancer is to a human body… Hence, I am inclined only to issue appropriate directions to avoid any more delay,” the judge said and issued a slew of directions to ensure speedy trial in the case on hand as well as other corruption cases.
He pointed out that petitioner R. Pandian had been accused of receiving a bribe of Rs.1,000 in October 1999, when he was serving as the Assistant Engineer at Thirumayam Rural Electric Cooperative Society in Pudukottai district, for providing electricity service connection to the well of a farmer.
ADVERTISEMENT
Though the trial in the case commenced in 2001, only eight witnesses were examined in the last 14 years and 12 more were yet to be examined.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption attributed many reasons for the delay including paucity of DLAs to conduct such cases.
Mr. Justice Nagamuthu disposed of the petition with a direction to the trial court to summon and examine the rest of the witnesses within six weeks without granting unnecessary adjournments and deliver the judgment in the case within six weeks thereafter.