JAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — 1991 DIGILAW 653 (RAJ)

Judgment N. L. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this is a third bail application under Section 439, Cr. P. C. , but it requires serious consideration due to circumstances developed later on. The petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 53/90 in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I. P. C. While rejecting the second bail application this Court had observed as under:--"the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in jail since June, 1990 and not a single witness has been examined so far though the charges were framed on 23-10-1990. It is the duty of the trial Court to see that no undue delay is caused in the trial of a Sessions Case, and all efforts should be made that after framing of the charges, the trial is completed within two or three months, which had been the usual practice. I expect from the trial Court that all efforts shall be made to complete the trial expeditiously in Sessions Cases, not only in this case but in other cases also in which the accused persons are in jail. " ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that Smt. Sunita committed suicide by swallowing some poisonous pill. The report of the incident was made at Police Station Alwar on 31/03/1990 by Sh. Roshanlal, the father of the deceased. In the report, an allegation was also made about the demand of dowry by the petitioner and the co-accused Smt. Sharda. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the earlier order of this Court, no progress has been made in the trial of the case. He submits that the petitioner is in jail since June, 1990 and about fourteen months have passed since then, but practically no progress has been made in the trial. The learned counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner indicates his innocence, in as much as, when he came to know about the illness of his wife he immediately provided her medical aid and when her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to the hospital by him. The learned counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner indicates his innocence, in as much as, when he came to know about the illness of his wife he immediately provided her medical aid and when her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to the hospital by him. The learned counsel argues that a day prior to the incident, the petitioner had taken the deceased to her parents house on the festival of gangor and they had gone on a bi-cycle. According to the learned counsel, in such cases it has become the fashion and practice to make false accusation of the demand of dowry, though in the community of the petitioner no such demand is made on the part of bridegroom. The learned counsel submits that in fact, in Mali-community, the bridegroom has to pay money to the brides father for the marriage of his daughter. ( 4 ) I would not like to make any comment on the merits of the case, but there are some striking features which are alarming and I would like to highlight the same in this order. The manner in which the trial of the present case has proceeded is not only shocking and painful, but it also demonstrates slackness and indiffernce towards the duties by the Presiding Officers. ( 5 ) SOME important dates relevant for the decision of this petition and various relevant order-sheets from the file of the trial court may be referred : the case was registered at Police Station Alwar on 31/03/1990. The police, after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet in the month of July, 1990. Then, the case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the record of the case was received in the court of Sessions Judge on Oct. 8, 1990. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar and fixed the next date as 23rd Oct. 1990. On 23rd Oct. 1990, the trial Judge framed charges against the petitioner and the co-accused Smt. Sharda. Thereafter, he fixed the next date as January 9 and 10, 1991 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On Jan. 9, 1991 no prosecution witness was present, as such, the case was adjourned to Jan. 10, 1991. On Jan. 1990. On 23rd Oct. 1990, the trial Judge framed charges against the petitioner and the co-accused Smt. Sharda. Thereafter, he fixed the next date as January 9 and 10, 1991 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On Jan. 9, 1991 no prosecution witness was present, as such, the case was adjourned to Jan. 10, 1991. On Jan. 10, 1991 also no prosecution witness was present and the learned Judge fixed the next date as 12th and 13/03/1991, for recording statement of the prosecution witnesses. On 12th and 13/03/1991, it appears that some witnesses were present, but the Judge did not record their statements on a lame execuse that he was under transfer orders. The next date was fixed as 30/04/1991. On Ap 30/04/1991, three prosecution witnesses were present, but their statements could not be recorded as the accused petitioner was not produced in court by the jail authorities on the ground of his being sent to hospital for treatment. Consequently, the next date was fixed as 12/07/1991. On Ju 12/07/1991 statement of only one witness was recorded and the next date has been fixed as Aug. 22, 1991 for recording the statements of other witnesses. ( 6 ) IT is really disturbing that the trial courts are so unaware of liberties of the citizens. Now, it is a settled proposition of law that expeditious criminal trial is a fundamental right of the accused, especially when he is in jail. No accused can be kept in jail for uncertain period, as an under-trial prisoner, especially when there is no fault on his part. In criminal cases in which the accused is in jail, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and to record the statements of the prosecution witnesses without any delay, rather day to day; and all efforts are to be made through the police agency to secure the attendance of the witnesses on the date fixed for recording their statements. It is also his duty not to grant adjournment unless it is found extremely necessary. Even if the case has to be adjourned, then the next date should not be after a long period. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, I find that the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the month of Oct. 1990. The charges were framed on Oct. 23, 1990. Even if the case has to be adjourned, then the next date should not be after a long period. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, I find that the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the month of Oct. 1990. The charges were framed on Oct. 23, 1990. The trial Judge fixed Jan 9 and 10, 1991 as the next dates for recording the prosecution evidence i. e. after more than two and half months. On these two dates not a single prosecution witness was present and the trial Judge adjourned the case and fixed dates as March 12 and 13, 1991 without caring that the petitioner is in jail and the case should not have been adjourned for such a long period. On March 12 and 13, 1991, some witnesses were present. The Presiding Officer was also there, but he did not choose to record their statements on a lame excuse of his being under transfer orders. Nothing can be more shocking and painful for me to notice that the statements of the witnesses could not be recorded though the Presiding Officer and the witnesses were available on the ground that the Presiding Officer was under transfer orders. Till a Presiding Officer does not give charge, he is expected to work and recording the statements of the witnesses can hardly be a matter of any grievance to anybody. It only shows that the Presiding Officer did not want to work on a lame excuse. On 30/04/1991, the accused-petitioner was not produced in the Court by the police on the ground that he had been sent to a hospital for treatment. Though, the Court was bound to adjourn the case on this ground but the shocking fact is that the Presiding officer again gave the next date after two and half months. ( 8 ) IT appears that in the instant case the Presiding Officers have completely forgotten their duties towards the poor accused who is in jell. I would like to draw the attention of the subordinate courts towards the General Rules (Criminal) 1980. Chapter (IV) in the General Rules (Criminal) 1980 provides the procedure and manner of trials in court of Sessions. Just for the guidance and to referesh the memory of the subordinate courts, I may refer some relevant Rules. I would like to draw the attention of the subordinate courts towards the General Rules (Criminal) 1980. Chapter (IV) in the General Rules (Criminal) 1980 provides the procedure and manner of trials in court of Sessions. Just for the guidance and to referesh the memory of the subordinate courts, I may refer some relevant Rules. Rule 39 provides that when an order of commitment for trial has been made, the Magistrate shall at once report the fact to the Court to which commitment is made by a letter in the prescribed form; and shall within eight days from making the said order, submit the entire record to the Court of Sessions and shall send material exhibits and articles within fornight thereof together with a calendar in the prescribed form. (Emphasis provided ). Then, Rule 42 provides that Sessions cases should be disposed of with the greatest possible expedition and that Sessions Judge should reserve particular number of days in a week for sessions work. Rule 43 provides expeditious disposal of Sessions cases, which runs as under :-"rule 43 - Expeditious disposal of Sessions trials should ordinarily be held in order in which commitments are made. The Presiding Officer may however exercise his discretion in the matter of giving priority to certain cases particularly cases involving capital sentence subsequently received or where the accused is in jail. Once a sessions trial is opened the Sessions Judge shall see that it is disposed of in the same session and not adjourned to next session. The sessions cases shall be taken up day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined and discharged. The sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and if necessary the Superintendent of Police of the district may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. A sessions trial should not be adjounred or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to recorded in writing. " (Emphasis supplied) the aforesaid Rules indicate that Session trials should be disposed of in a most expeditious manner and once a session trial is opened, it is the duty of the concerned Judge to see that it is disposed of in thesame session. The case has to be taken day do day until all the witnesses in the cases are examined. The case has to be taken day do day until all the witnesses in the cases are examined. It is also the duty of the Presiding Officer to take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and, if necessary, the Superintendent of Police of the district may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. Further, the trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. ( 9 ) IN spite of the aforesaid, Rules, the present case has been dealt with in a most casual manner. Keeping utmost judicial restrain I can only express my displeasure about the manner in which the trial has proceeded in this case. I can expect not only from the Presiding Officer of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar, but from other Sessions Judges also not to forget and ignore the aforesaid Criminal Rules which are meant for their guidance. These rules are meant to be followed. These rules assume importance when the accused is in jail and who can rightly claim an expeditious trial as his fundamental right provided by the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) YET another shocking feature of this case is that in spite of the specific directions given by this Court by order dated 15/04/1991 to complete the trial expeditiously within two or three months, the same has been disobeyed. The manner in which adjournments have been granted and that too by giving long dates indisputedly establishes that the disobedience of the aforesaid order of this court is wilful and deliberate. Subordinate courts are bound to obey the orders of the higher courts. This is also a judicial propriety which is necessary to be strictly followed to maintain judicial system intact. If the orders of the higher courts are wilfully and deliberately disobeyed by the subordinate court it amounts to a contempt of the court. In the course of arguments, at one time I had thought to issue a conempt notice to the concerned Presiding Officer/officers, but having come to know that the earlier Presiding Officer has been transferred and the new Presiding Officer has taken the charge sometime in the month of March-April, 1991, it shall be suffice to record a warning against them to be vigilant and careful in following the directions of the superior courts. In the aforesaid background, I have no option, but to release the petitioner on bail under S. 439, Cr. P. C. Consequently, this petition is allowed and it is hereby directed that the petitioner Jai Singh S/o Pyarelal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 (ten thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 (five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in the said court or any other court on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial in this case. A copy of this order be kept in the personal file of the concerned Presiding Officer. The Dy. Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to send cyclo-style copy of this order to all Sessions Judges/addl. Sessions Judges for their guidance and to draw their attention towards Chapter (IV) trials in courts of Sessions contained in General Rules (Criminal) 1980, which are meant to be strictly followed. Petition allowed.