DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Ref.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Table of Contents (Nominal) CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16 Chapter 2. Data Analysis 17-89 Chapter 3: Major findings 90-117 Chapter 4: How long the Wheels of Justice shall hold 118-144 on for appearance of the accused? Chapter 5: Whose case is it in any way? Police, 145-166 Prosecution or the Victim Chapter 6 Can there be a time frame for completing 167-175 Investigation? Chapter 7 Recommendations 176-182 i Table of Contents (Detailed) Chapter Page No. CONTENTS No. List of Abbreviations vii List of Cases viii - x List of Tables xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-16 A. What amounts to delay? 7-13 B. Objectives of the Study 14 C. Limitations of the Study 14 D. Methodology 14-16 Chapter 2 DATA ANALYSIS 17-89 A. Stage I: Analysis of Form 1 17-29 B. State II: Analysis of Form 2, 3 and 4 30-40 C. Stage III: Sample Study of life cycle of 41-49 pending and disposed of cases D. Stage IV: Questionnaires 50-89 Chapter 3 MAJOR FINDINGS 90-117 A. Non-appearance of the accused at 90-95 different stages of Trial B. Fall out of absconding on criminal 95-98 ii adjudication C. Procedural and penal safeguards to 98-102 check and deal with non-appearance of the accused D. How far Sec.299 Cr.P.C been 102-107 effective? E. Avoidable delays at the stage of 107-111 commitment of cases to the court of sessions F. Delay at the stage of Prosecution 111-116 Evidence G. Delay at the Stage of Investigation 116-117 H. Conclusion 117 Chapter 4 HOW LONG THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE 118-144 SHALL HOLD ON FOR APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED? A. Right to fair trial vis-à-vis Right to 119-120 defense B. Whether there is a right of the 120 accused to confront the witness of the Prosecution? C. Whether right to confront witness 121-123 covered under Fundamental Rights? D. Identification of accused in Absentia 123 iii Trials E. Deliberate Non-appearance v. Right 123-125 to Defense: Doctrine of ‘Trial in Absentia’ F. Doctrine of ‘Trial in Absentia’ – 125-126 Rationale G. Doctrine of ‘Trial in Absentia’ – 126-143 Comparative view of Criminal Jurisprudence a. English Law 126-132 b. Trial in Absentia – Canadian 132-134 Perspective c. ‘Trial in Absentia’ in Australia 134 d. American Jurisprudence vis-à- 134-140 vis Trial in Absentia e. Position in New Zealand 140-141 f. Position in Bangladesh 141-143 H. Trial in Absentia: International 143-144 Scenario I. Conclusion 144 Chapter 5 WHOSE CASE IS IT IN ANY WAY? 145-166 POLICE, PROSECUTION OR THE VICTIM A. Present prosecution structure in 149-150 iv India B. Objective behind bifurcation of police 150-151 and prosecution wings C. Practical spin-off of bifurcation on 152-154 police and prosecution D. Production of evidence during trial 154-155 E. Reason for failure of bifurcation 155-157 F. System of prosecution world wide 157-163 a. Germany 158 b. Japan 158-159 c. Kenya 160 d. Pakistan 160 e. England and Wales 160-162 f. Korea 162 g. America 163 G. Conclusion 163-166 Chapter 6 CAN THERE BE A TIME FRAME FOR 167-175 COMPLETING INVESTIGATION? A. Relevant judicial pronouncements: India 168-172 o State of Andhra Pradesh v. 168-170 P.V.Pavitharan [1990] AIR SC 1266 o Vineet Narain v. Union of India 170 v 1996 SCC (2) 199 o Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal 171-172 v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCC 642 o Pankaj Kumar v. State of 172 Maharashtra AIR 2008 (SC) 3077 B. Comparative Study: Vietnam Criminal 173-175 Procedure Code C. Conclusion 175 Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 176-182 Bibliography Annexure I i- vi Annexure II vii-xiii Annexure III xiv-xx Annexure IV xxi-xxv Annexure V xxvi-xxvii vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIR All India Reporter All E R All England Reports Art. Article Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code Cri Criminal EHRR European Human Rights Report FF Final Form G.R General Register Jhr Jharkhand MANU Manupatra NCMS National Court Management Systems NJDG National Judicial Data Grid NSWCCA New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal NSWLR New South Wales Law Reports Para. paragraph PIL Public Interest Litigation QB Queen’s Bench S.T Sessions Trial SASC Supreme Court of South Australia SC Supreme Court SCALE Supreme Court Almanac SCC Supreme Court Cases Sec. Section Supp Supplementary U.N. United Nations U.S. United States u/s Under Section VLR Victorian Law Reports w.e.f With effect from vii W.P Writ Petition LIST OF CASES Name of the Case Page No. A 1. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.Nayak AIR 1992 8 SC 1701 2. AG Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav [2015] 4 Crimes (SC) 1 3 3. Appabhai Vs State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241 105 C 4. Cf Crosby v. U.S., 506 U.S. 255, 262 (1993) 136, 137, 138, 139 5. Citizens' Cause Vs. The State of Jharkhand and 109 Ors. (W.P.(PIL) 858 of 2009), D 6. Diaz v. United States 223 U.S. 442 (1912) 124, 140 F 7. Falk v. United States 181 U.S. 618 (1901) 124 G 8. Gagan Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand 2004 CriLJ 108 1910(1912) (jhr). H 9. Haider Ali & Anr. V. DPO Chakwal & others, Civil 160 Petition No.1282 of 2014 10. Hopt v. Utah, 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 135 202 (1884), I 11. In R v Williams (10 September 2004) HC AK CRI 140, 141 2003-404-025445 J 12. James G. Starkey (1979), Trial in Absentia, 53 (4) 124 St. Jhon’s Law Review 1979 13. Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs State of Maharastra 121 and another (2009) 7 SCC 104 L 14. Lala v. Netherlands [1994] 18 EHRR 586, at 129 p.597, para 33 M 15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 2, 4 597 16. Mbenge v. Zaire, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 (Mar. 143 25, 1983) N 17. Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal v. State of 171 Maharashtra 2013 (4) SCC 642 18. Nirmal Singh Vs State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 102, 105 1416 viii P 19. Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 172 (SC) 3077 20. Pelladoah v. Netherlands [1994] 19 EHRR 81, at 129 p.94, para 40 21. Poitrimol v. France (1993) 18 EHRR 130 (ECHR) at 143 [31] R 22. R v Dunn (4 June 2008) HC AK CRI 2008-404- 140, 141 000076; 23. R v Guo and Hui (22 February 2006) HC AK CRI 140 2004-004-18566 24. R v McFall (7 April 2005) HC HN CRI 2004-019- 140, 141 20514, 25. R v Williams (10 September 2004) HC AK CRI 140, 141 2003-404-025445 26. R v. Abrahams [1895] 21 VLR 343 at 347 128 27. R v. Dunn (4 June 2008) HC AK CRI 2008-404- 140, 141 000076 28. R v. Howson, [1981] 74 Cr.App.R 172 128 29. R v. Jones 1972 2 All ER 731 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 140 30. R v. Jones [1998] SASC 7021; 134 31. R v. Jones, Planter and Pengelly [1991] CrimLR 128 856 32. R v. McHardie [1983] 2 NSWLR 733; 134 33. R v. Parakau [2002] DCR 699 140 34. R v. Serrano (ruling No.5) [2007] VSC 209, 134 35. R v. Sthmer, (17 June 2003) HC WN T064/01; 140 36. R v.van Yzendoorn [2002] 3 NZLR 758 (CA) 140 37. R Vs Hayward [2001] Q.B.862 132 38. R Vs. Governor of Brixton Prison, exp Caborn- 126 Waterfield 1960 (2) QB 498 at 508-509 39. R Vs. Jones {Rew}{2}1972 2 All E R 731 127 40. R. Vs. Cornwell (1972) NSWLR I (NSWCCA) 127 41. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (I) 9 MANU/SC/0640/1998 42. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar(II) 10 MANU/SC/1655/1999 43. Rasiklala v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani (AIR 91 2009 SC 1341) S 44. S.K. Shukla Vs State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 413 157 45. Sanjay Jumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand 103 W.P.(Cr) No.46 of 2010 46. Santoro v. United States, 409 U.S. 1063, 93 S.Ct. 138 554, 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972) ix 47. Satyajeet Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal [2005] 171 1 SCC 115 48. State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Pavitharan [1990] 168 AIR(SC) 1266 49. State of Gujarat v Kishan Bhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 152, 154, 155, 156 50. State v. Whitley, 85 P.3d 116 (2004) (Depublished 139 Opinion), Arizona Court of Appeals (based on Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure) T 51. Tailor Vs. US, Mass, 94 S.Ct. 194 135 U 52. U.S. Illinios Vs. Allen, III, 90 S.Ct.1057 122 53. U.S. v. Tortoro 464 F.2d 1202 (2nd Cir.), 125 54. United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 137 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct.881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976), 55. United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245 (2d Cir.), 138, 149 cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 584, 93 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986), V 56. Vineet Narain Vs Union Of India 1996 SCC(2) 199 170 W 57. William Slaney vs. State of M.P [1956] AIR (SC) 2 116 Z 58. Zahira Habibulla H.
Recommended publications
  • Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law I

    Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law I

    Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law i Locating the Survivorin the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law LAWYERS COLLECTIVE WOMEN’S RIGHTS INITIATIVE Contents Contents v Foreword ix Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Introduction I. Kinds of Offences and Cases 2 1. Bailable Offence 2 2. Non Bailable Offence 2 3. Cognisable Offences 2 4. Non Cognisable Offences 2 5. Cognisable Offences and Police Responsibility 3 6. Procedure for Trial of Cases 3 II. First Information Report 4 1. Process of Recording Complaint 4 2. Mandatory Reporting under Section 19 of the POCSO Act 4 3. Special Procedure for Children 5 4. Woman Officer to Record Information in Specified Offences 5 5. Special Process for Differently-abled Complainant 6 6. Non Registration of FIR 6 7. Registration of FIR and Territorial Jurisdiction 8 III. Magisterial Response 9 1. Remedy against Police Inaction 10 IV. Investigation 11 1. Steps in Investigation 12 2. Preliminary, Pre-FIR Inquiry by the Police 12 Locating the Survivor in the Indian Criminal Justice System: Decoding the Law v 3. Process of Investigation 13 4. Fair Police Investigation 14 5. Statement and Confessions 14 (i) Examination and statements of witnesses 14 (ii) Confessions to the magistrate 16 (iii) Recording the confession 16 (iv) Statements to the magistrate 16 (v) Statement of woman survivor 17 (vi) Statement of differently abled survivor 17 6. Medical Examination of the Survivor 17 (i) Examination only by consent 17 (ii) Medical examination of a child 17 (iii) Medical examination report 18 (iv) Medical treatment of a survivor 18 7.
  • Record of Proceedings SUPREME COURT

    Record of Proceedings SUPREME COURT

    1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT(CRL.) NO.1 OF 2017 IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS O R D E R During the course of hearing of Criminal Appeal No.400/2006 and connected matters, Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-complainant, pointed out certain common inadequacies and deficiencies in the course of trial adopted by the trial court while disposing of criminal cases. In particular, it was pointed out that though there are beneficial provisions in the Rules of some of the High Courts which ensure that certain documents such as list of witnesses and the list of exhibits/material objects referred to, are annexed to the judgment and order itself of the trial court, these features do not exist in Rules of some other High Courts. Undoubtedly, the judgments and orders of the trial court which have such lists annexed, can be appreciated much better by the appellate courts. Certain other matters were also pointed out by Mr. Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants- complainant, during the course of arguments. He made the 2 following submissions : A. In the course of discussions at the Bar while considering this case, this Court had generally adverted to certain common inadequacies and imperfections that occur in the criminal trials in our country. I venture to suggest that in the interests of better administration of criminal justice and to usher in a certain amount of uniformity, and acceptance of best practices prevailing over various parts of India, this Court may consider issue of certain general guidelines to be followed across the board by all Criminal Courts in the country.
  • The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence

    The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence

    EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY THE “RADICAL” MAY 2020 Tracey Meares, NOTION OF THE Justice Collaboratory, Yale University Arthur Rizer, PRESUMPTION R Street Institute OF INNOCENCE The Square One Project aims to incubate new thinking on our response to crime, promote more effective strategies, and contribute to a new narrative of justice in America. Learn more about the Square One Project at squareonejustice.org The Executive Session was created with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails. 04 08 14 INTRODUCTION THE CURRENT STATE OF WHY DOES THE PRETRIAL DETENTION PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MATTER? 18 24 29 THE IMPACT OF WHEN IS PRETRIAL WHERE DO WE GO FROM PRETRIAL DETENTION DETENTION HERE? ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE? TO AND SAFEGUARDS AROUND PRETRIAL DETENTION 33 35 37 CONCLUSION ENDNOTES REFERENCES 41 41 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHOR NOTE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 04 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE “It was the smell of [] death, it was the death of a person’s hope, it was the death of a person’s ability to live the American dream.” That is how Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia described the Cook County Jail where she served as the institution’s warden (from May 2015 to March 2018). This is where we must begin. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 05 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Any discussion of pretrial detention must Let’s not forget that Kalief Browder spent acknowledge that we subject citizens— three years of his life in Rikers, held on presumed innocent of the crimes with probable cause that he had stolen a backpack which they are charged—to something containing money, a credit card, and an iPod that resembles death.
  • SUPREME COURT of INDIA Girish Sharma Vs. the State Of

    SUPREME COURT of INDIA Girish Sharma Vs. the State Of

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Girish Sharma Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh Crl.A.No.939-940 of 2017 (Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit,JJ.,) 23.08.2017 ORDER 1. On 12th February, 2015, FIR No.9/2015 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation was that huge amount was recovered from possession of accused which was as a of corruption. The FIR was against 27 persons but after investigation chargesheet was filed against 16 persons. The persons against whom the chargesheet was filed included senior officers of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. During investigation, statements of three of the accused mentioned in the FIR, namely, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav, who are appellants before us, were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. They were not arrayed as accused but were cited as witnesses in the chargesheet. After the court took cognizance against the accused named in the chargesheet, some of the accused made applications under Section 193/319 Cr.P.C. to summon the above three persons, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav as accused. 3. The trial court rejected the said applications but the matter was carried in revision before the High Court and the High Court allowed the summoning. The reason given by the High Court in the order of summoning is that procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. was not followed which was the only procedure available under the Criminal Procedure Code to make an accused a witness, after grant of pardon with Court’s permission.
  • Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker V

    Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker V

    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 67 Issue 1 Article 12 2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test Seth Osnowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Seth Osnowitz, Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test, 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 273 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol67/iss1/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 67·Issue 1·2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Barker v. Wingo Test Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 273 I. Background and Policy of Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial .......................................................................... 275 A. History of Speedy Trial Jurisprudence ............................................ 276 B. Policy Considerations and the “Demand-Waiver Rule”..................... 279 II. The Barker Test and Defendants’ Assertion of the Right to a Speedy Trial .................................................................. 282 A. Rejection of the
  • Speedy Trial

    Speedy Trial

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Article 7 Issue 4 December Winter 1977 Speedy Trial Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Speedy Trial, 68 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 543 (1977) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 68, No. 4 Copyright @ 1977 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SPEEDY TRIAL United States v. Lovasco, 97 S. Ct. 2044 (1977). The Supreme Court of the United States has v. Marion,7 the Supreme Court focused on the recognized that the right to a speedy trial "is language of the sixth amendment8 and con- one of the most basic rights preserved by our cluded that the sixth amendment speedy trial Constitution."' The right, as encompassed by provision does not apply until an individual the sixth amendment to the United States Con- becomes an accused, that is either through stitution,2 can be traced to the Magna Carta of arrest or indictment. The Court also stated 1215,3 which states, "we will sell to no man, we that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal will not deny or defer to any man either justice Procedure9 is limited in application to post- or right.
  • Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act

    Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act

    Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act • Substantial change to existing law that impacts pretrial incarceration decisions and the manner in which certain cases will be processed through the Court system. – Constitutional Amendment allowing Defendant’s to be held without bail (passed by referendum in 2014) – Statutory changes impacting the manner in which pretrial incarceration decisions are made, and how a criminal case is processed for incarcerated offenders • These changes have already been passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The effective date of the law, statewide, is January 1, 2017. • We are a pilot county. (Other pilot programs in Morris, Passaic, and Camden). Anticipated effective date of changes for Sussex County is May of 2016. Current Processing of a Criminal Case ARREST/CHARGE SUMMONS WARRANT Central Judicial 1st Appearance/Bail AP not Processing Review (within 72 AP is present Hours) present Plea Hearing Case Resolved Early Case Not Resolved Grand Jury Disposition Presentation Conference Sentencing Arraignment Conference Status Conference Pre-Trial Conference Trial Aspects of Existing System That Will Change • Under the current system, the SCPO is not required, and does not, have an AP present at CJP Court. − CJP Court currently sits 1 day per week and is in session for about 4 hours • Under the current system, for defendants remanded to the jail on a warrant, no weekend appearance is necessary. − This is so because the first appearance/bail review does not need to take place for 72 hours. − Therefore, for a defendant arrested on a Friday, we can legally wait until Monday for the first appearance/bail review Aspects of Existing System That Will Change (Continued) • Under the current system, there are no lengthy testimonial hearings prior to the EDC conference.
  • Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S

    Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of North Carolina School of Law NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 46 | Number 2 Article 7 2-1-1968 Constitutional Law -- Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S. Geimer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William S. Geimer, Constitutional Law -- Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi, 46 N.C. L. Rev. 387 (1968). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol46/iss2/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19681 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL allow the court to continue the appointment if it determined counsel was required.50 STEPHEN E. CULBRETHr Constitutional Law-Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi In Klopfer v. North Carolina,'theUnited States Supreme Court held that the sixth amendment guarantee of the right to speedy trial is a basic right protected by the Constitution and is therefore incorporated into the due process clause and made obligatory upon the states under the fourteenth amendment.2 Implicit in the de- cision is the proposition that the speedy trial guarantee is to be en- forced against the states according to the federal standard.3 In Klopfer, a violation of the sixth amendment was found in the use of the North Carolina procedural device of "nolle prosequi with leave." Its objectionable characteristic is the power given the state solicitor to suspend indefinitely action on a case, after an indictment has been filed, and notwithstanding defendant's timely demand for trial.
  • Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: the "Window of Recapture"

    Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: the "Window of Recapture"

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 2 Spring 1985 Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: The "Window of Recapture" John F. Yetter Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation John F. Yetter, Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: The "Window of Recapture", 13 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 9 (1985) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol13/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA'S NEW SPEEDY TRIAL RULE: THE "WINDOW OF RECAPTURE" JOHN F. YETTER* The Florida Supreme Court amended the criminal speedy trial rule, Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective January 1, 1985.1 Under the previous rule, an accused was abso- lutely discharged from prosecution if the time provisions were vio- * Professor of Criminal Law and Associate Dean, Florida State University. Chairman, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of the Florida Bar. Lehigh University, B.A., B.S., 1963; Duquesne University, J.D., 1967; Yale University, LLM., 1968. 1. Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Rules-Criminal Procedure, 462 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1984). Neither the amendment, nor the commentary to it, contains any provision relating to the transitional period. The state may contend that the amendment permits recapture of defendants in any case where the underlying speedy trial time had not expired as of January 1, 1985.
  • Problems in the Criminal Investigation with Reference to Increasing Acquittals: a Study of Criminal Law and Practice in ANDHRA PRADESH

    Problems in the Criminal Investigation with Reference to Increasing Acquittals: a Study of Criminal Law and Practice in ANDHRA PRADESH

    Problems in the criminal investigation with reference to increasing acquittals: A Study of Criminal Law and Practice IN ANDHRA PRADESH Submitted by Dr.K.V.K.Santhy Co-ordinator NALSAR University of Law Justice City, Shameerpet – 500 078 R.R.District, Andhra Pradesh, India Problems in the criminal investigation with reference to increasing acquittals: A Study of Criminal Law and Practice Research Team Project Director : Professor Veer Singh, Vice Chancellor, NALSAR, University of Law Project Coordinator : Dr. KVK Santhy, Assistant Professor, (Criminal Law) NALSAR, University of Law Project Chief Executive : Prof. Madabhushi Sridhar, NALSAR NALSAR, University of Law Researcher : Mr.D.Balakrishna, Asst.Professor of Law NALSAR, University of Law Student Researchers : Ms.Nidhi Malik, BA LLB (Hons.) 5th year Ms.Sruthi Namburi, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Arushi Garg, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Shuchita Thapar, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Harmanpreet Kaur, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Himabindu Killi, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms. Prianca Ravichander, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Ms.Prarthana Vaidya, BA LLB (Hons.) 3rd year Acknowledgements We are greatly indebted to BPRD (Govt. of India) for giving this opportunity to work upon an important and contemporary topic defects in the investigation. We are grateful to Honorable Sri. Justice B.Chandra Kumar, Judge , High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and Honorable Sri. Justice Goda Raghuram, Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh for giving us valuable suggestions to improve the system of investigation. We are highly thankful to Dr. Tapan Chakraborthy, Asst Director, BPRD for the constant guidance and encouragement provided to us all through the project.
  • Chapter III Enquiry and Trial by Magistrate Complaints 1. As Soon

    Chapter III Enquiry and Trial by Magistrate Complaints 1. As Soon

    Chapter III Enquiry And Trial by Magistrate Complaints 1. As soon as the Complaints/Charge-sheet (other than that for petty offence), is filed in the Court, it shall be examined with reference to the following points :- (1) Whether the Charge-sheet/Complaint is filed in the Court having jurisdiction (2) Whether the Charge-sheet/Complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. (3) (a)Whether a sanction of any authority is necessary under the law for launching the prosecution. (b) If yes, is it obtained at the prescribed point of time and from the prescribed authority. (c) Whether the original Order of sanction or a copy of the same is produced as required by law. (4) (a) Whether the names and addresses of Complainant / accused and witnesses are properly mentioned; (b) Whether the accused is juvenile and as such, is it necessary to deal with accused under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (5) Whether the identification marks of the accused are furnished in Police Cases. (6) Whether the accused was arrested and released on bail before launching the prosecution, whether the dates of his arrest and release are mentioned in the Charge-sheet/ Complaint and the bail bond (if not already in custody of the Court), is attached to the case papers. (7) Whether the accused is released by the Court on bail before launching the prosecution. - (a) whether the date of such release is mentioned in the Charge-sheet ; and (b) whether the bail papers are available in Court records (attach the bail papers to the case.).
  • Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C

    Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C

    1 A.F.R. Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2110 of 2021 Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lakshman Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1) Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in the Court today is taken on record. 2) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3) Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application This exemption application is allowed. 4) Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Shivam, in Case Crime No. 16 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Churkhi, District- Jalaun at post-cognizance stage. 5) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required. 2 6) The allegation in the F.I.R is that the informant is a newsman.