To curb trial delays, Karnataka HC directs trial courts to admit undisputed documents by consent and drop unnecessary witnesses

The petitioner, a Port Officer, challenged the charge sheet dated 16 November 2013 in Spl.C.C. No. 268/2013 pending before the 32nd Additional City Civil and Special Judge, CBI, Bengaluru.

He invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., principally contending that the prolonged pendency of the criminal trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial and seeking quashing of the proceedings insofar as they concerned him.

The CBI opposed the petition, submitting that the delay was not attributable solely to the prosecution.

It also informed the Court that 54 witnesses had already been examined and that the trial could be concluded within three months, subject to the petitioner’s cooperation.

1. Whether the prolonged pendency of Spl.C.C. No. 268/2013, instituted pursuant to the 2013 charge sheet, warranted quashing of the charge sheet or criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial?

2. Whether directions should be issued to facilitate expeditious completion of the trial, including admission and marking by consent of documents whose genuineness was not disputed under Section 294(3) of the Cr.P.C.?

The Court exercised its constitutional and inherent jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in considering the petitioner’s challenge to the pending criminal proceedings.

The right to speedy trial was treated as a constitutionally protected fundamental right, forming the basis of the petitioner’s grievance.

Section 294(3) of the Cr.P.C. permits documents whose genuineness is not disputed to be read in evidence without formal proof; the Court noted its corresponding provision as Section 330(3) of the BNSS, 2023.

The Court also referred to the mandatory supply of documents under Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Sections 230 and 231 of the BNSS, as procedural mechanisms relevant to efficient criminal trials.

The Court acknowledged that the case had remained pending since 2013 and that the petitioner asserted continuous readiness to cooperate, thereby raising a legitimate concern regarding speedy trial.

However, instead of quashing the charge sheet, the Court considered the CBI’s submission that 54 witnesses had already been examined and accepted that the delay was not attributable exclusively to the prosecution.

To reduce avoidable delay in a document-intensive CBI trial, the Court emphasized the use of Section 294(3) Cr.P.C., enabling undisputed documents to be marked by consent and unnecessary formal witnesses to be dropped.

Applying this approach, the Court granted the trial court time up to the end of December 2026 to conclude the proceedings, subject to cooperation by the parties.

Instead, it disposed of the writ petition and granted the trial court time until the end of December 2026 to conclude Spl.C.C. No. 268/2013.

The parties were directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the case, including admitting and marking undisputed documents by consent and enabling the dropping of unnecessary witnesses.

The Court further directed that a copy of the order be circulated to the District Judiciary and the Karnataka Judicial Academy, subject to approval of the Chief Justice, to encourage adherence to Section 294(3) Cr.P.C. in pending trials.