@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
The record has been called for perusal so as to avoid the possibility of delay in completion of the trial.
Shri Kutumble placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of
The delay in trial is infringing provisions of Art. 21 of Indian Constitution.
In the said judgment the Supreme Court gave guidelines which have been enumerated in paragraphs 16 and 17. Shri Kutumble submitted that in view of the delay in the present trial, the prosecution pending against the present applicant be quashed. Shri Salim, P.L. opposed this prayer and submitted that the offences are very serious and, therefore the accused is not entitled to get benefit of the observations of Supreme Court in the matter quoted supra.
In the present case the order sheet has been perused so far as legible material is concerned. The judgment on which Shri Kutumble placed reliance has been decided by the Bench constituting three Judges of Supreme Court presiding over by C.J.I. Hon. Shri Justice M.M. Punchhi, Hon. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon. Justice M. Srinivasan. In a later judgment delivered by the Supreme Court when some clarification was sought by C.B.I. which has been reported in 1999 (2) MP WN 191, The Bench constituting three Judges of Supreme Court, Hon. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon. Justice Srinivasan and Hon. Justice M.B. Shah. In this judgment the Supreme Court has clarified the guidelines and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Rajdeo''s case (supra). It has been indicated in the said judgment that a discretion is still vesting with the court to come to a conclusion for the purpose of administration of justice. In this context, the delay caused on account of or on behalf of accused has to be considered. In the present matter the case was adjourned in the year 1992, in month of May, in the month of July and thereafter in the year 1996 on account of the cause which was from the side of defence. The entries in the order sheet show that on some occasions the accused was not present before the court and the accused was warned in this context. This aspect can not be ignored.
In view of those two judgments of the Supreme Court and for purpose of securing unobstructed clean flow of administration of justice, this court finds necessary to give some directions to the trial court so as to avoid the delay in deciding the criminal cases which revolve around the provisions of Art. 21 of Indian Constitution. None can have a debate that it is the right of the accused to get the speedy trial and the justice as guaranted by Art. 21 of Indian Constitution. But unfortunately, the atmosphere which is prelevant in the subordinate courts is quite indifferent and full of lethargy till the charge is framed. It is sorrowful affair that after the charge sheet has been filed against the accused, neither prosecution nor the accused bother for early hearing of the trial. The presiding officer is also quite indifferent to this aspect. Some days go wasted and no action is taken so far as framing of the charge is concerned and setting the trial to prosecution by examining the witnesses and recording the evidence. The court, the accused and prosecution counsel engage themselves in small bouts on petty matters including the prayer for adjournments and opposition to the said prayer. Days pass away and on one fine morning of the day, the trigger starts and the charge framed against the accused. Till that time, the case is kept in doldrums and wooden or rusty iron boxes being stored and lying idle there, waiting for its turn to come to the stage of trial. Even after the charge is framed, the prosecution does not bother to keep the witnesses present within time on many occasions. The olden days have been forgotton, when at the time of hearing of each and every sessions case, the investigating officer used to be present right from the day one till the argument could be heard, with the case diary. All witnesses used to be summoned and kept present and the investigating officer used to be present for the purpose of giving necessary instructions to the public prosecutor right from day one. Same story used to be in trial court. Now a days, hardly the public prosecutor or additional public prosecutor gets the opportunity of seeing the face of investigating officer at day one of the trial for giving instructions to him and assisting him for the purpose of progress of the trial. The police department unfortunately has forgotton this important duty and police officers have forgotton that it is equally important for them to attend the courts and the cases investigated by such investigating officers. Presence of witnesses is not procured. No efforts are made for bringing the witnesses to the court. The summonses are returned or even not returned. The summons get the endorsemens on their from a casual attitude constable who endorses that whenever he visited the house of the witnesses, they were not available for him. Many endorsements speak that the person went to the house of the witness to serve the summons but was unable to trace the person on whom the summon was to be served. The same is the case for the purpose of procuring presence of the accused who jumps the bail. The endorsement indicates in strange manner that when the police officer or police constable had visited the house of the accused, he was not found there. No efforts are made for the purpose of tracing him, finding him and producing him before the court.
Prosecutors also follow easy method of seeking the adjournments on account of absence of the witnesses even from police department. They take it for granted that even witnesses from government department are not obliged to come to the court responding the first summon. They are not strict and they do not enforce the strictness required by the post which they occupy. It appears that they Work keeping in view the convenience of such witnesses even from the government department on many occasions. On many occasions defence counsel are busy in other courts and the accused pray for adjournments insisting that the cross-examinations should be made by particular advocate only. Many senior advocates find themselves busy in number of cases. They find themselves unable to remain present before court for conducting the trials on account of their busy schedule of cases. It is high time now that there should be always a second front which would be present in the court for examination and cross-examination of important witnesses. It is the need of the time now that such busy advocates should marshal put their time so as to render guarantee that they would be present for cross-examination of each important witness in the prosecution, against accused, whose responsibility of defence has been shouldered by them when the cases are accepted. Either they have to remain present for such trials or has to create a second front or 3rd front as the case may be who would be capable of taking care of the accused and prosecution in examining the witnesses. Something more has to be done. The system has to be toned up.
The government has to take a serious view and has to appoint more prosecutors keeping in view the growing population and growing number of crimes. Gone are those days, when one prosecutor use to control two or three courts. Now every prosecutor should be entrusted with the duty of conducting the prosecution in one court of magistrate and every public prosecutor should be entrusted with the duty of representing the prosecution punctually and on every day when the criminal prosecution is to be conducted in one court only. There should be appointed more prosecutors. The stop gap arrangement in such case, has to be taken as sin. Non-appointment of the prosecutors and delay in that cause has also to be taken as sin towards democracy and society. One prosecutor for more than one court has to be forgotten as early as possible.
The accused should also shade out the practice of playing the delaying tactice for the purpose of gaining the advantage in the nature of making the witness hostile to the prosecution directly or indirectly or making them to forget the account of the incidents. On some occasion delay causes such infirmities in the prosecution case without any intention or without any deliberation but on some occasion the defence is responsible for this, and the prosecution also share its own share by remaining indifferent, the victims and society suffer. Such accused can not be permitted to take advantage of such delay and can not be permitted to escape from the prosecution for committing serious offences on account of delay. If the accused who is charged for committing serious offence, escapes, the injury would be caused to the cause of the society and the victims would feel shameful and humiliated for remaining period of their life.
Therefore, now the criminal courts have to make the efforts right from day one when the charge sheet is filed in the court for the purpose of taking necessary steps for purpose of framing of charge and deciding the case at early time. If that happens, such petitions would not be filed before High Courts. Let all the concern persons be now awakened and be serious about this pious obligation to maintain the dignity and decorum of democracy. If any one fails that would be a serious sin which may not be pardoned by incoming days of future, by future generation. That needs to be left behind in the century which is to be left behind.
The State Government should seriously think of appointing the sufficient number of judges, magistrates to preside over the existing courts. The presiding officers should also avoid proceeding on leave on the days when sessions trials are fixed for examination of witnesses and recording of evidence unless they are compelled to do so on account of grounds which are beyond their control. Same should be the duty of prosecutors and defences counsel. In every matter the prosecutors should insist that the case diary should be furnished for the purpose do perusal of the court immediately within 3-4 days because now the means of communication are available in best type. Even case diaries can be called by appointing special messengers. They should write a report to the superior officers if case diary is not produced within 3-4 days for perusal of the courts. Let there be shading out the delay right from every stage. The importance of liberty should be kept in mind by all concern persons at all important stages so far as subordinate courts are concerned.
The Additional Advocate General of M.P. State Government Advocates working in this court is hereby directed to send copy of this judgment to superior police officers and all district magistrates so as to ensure quickness of the prosecution machinery and for avoding the delay in completion of trials.
Thus, the petition stands dismissed at this stage as it is decided finally. The trial court is hereby directed to follow the directions embodied in this judgment seriously, scrupulously not only in this case but in all cases in future. Record be despatched to the trial court immediately. Registrar is directed to place this judgment before Hon. the Chief Justice of this court for the purpose of circulating it amongst all criminal subordinate courts of all categories.
