P.Ramachandra Rao v.

State
of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC
578
• Sec. 13(1)(e) read with sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
• The appellant was working as an Electrical Superintendent in
Manglore City Corporation. He was found to have amassed assets
disproportionate to his known income and charge sheeted under
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The trial did not start even lapse of 2 years when the case was
pending before the special court. The special court acquitted the
accused. The state preferred an appeal before the high court against
the acquittal of the accused and the appeal was allowed by the high
court and set aside the order of acquittal.
Issue
• Whether it is permissible for judiciary to draw or prescribe an outer
limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings?
• 1)-The dictum in A.R. Antulay case is correct and still holds the field.
• 2)-The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding
the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay case adequately
take care of the right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said
propositions.
• 3)-The guidelines laid down in A.R.Antulay case are not exhaustive but only
illustrative. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be
made.
• 4)-It is nether advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or
prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.
• 5)-The primary function of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and not to legislate
Conclusion
• Bars of limitation uncalled and impermissible because it amounts to
judicial legislation, which is not permissible and because they run
counter to the doctrine of binding precedents