Judgment K. S. Paripoornan, C. J. 1. This is a public interest litigation. The matter concerns the administration of criminal justice in the subordinate courts in the State of Bihar. The entire system has perilously come to a grinding halt. A letter was received from the 6th Additional Judicial commissioner, Ranchi, in respect of certain sessions cases. It disclosed that in this State, there is a common feature not to produce accused persons in courts on due dates in spite of the order of the court; sessions trials are being hampered or delayed due to non production of under-trial prisoners. A Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice, Mr. B C. Basak mr. Justice Choudhary S. N. Mishra initiated suo motu proceeding on 2-9-93 and directed the Inspector-General of Prisons, Director-General of Police, respondents in the proceedings, to explain From then onwards innumerable orders were passed by this Court from time to time. They are matters of record. It is necessary only to mention the important orders passed earlier. By order dated 24-1993 this Court noticed that due to pendency of bills for huge amounts, petrols were not being supplied on credit and so prisoner vans were not available for bringing the accused. Many prisoners vans were old and unusable and a few of them were under repair and so they could not be utilised, etc. Still later on 27-9-93 this Court noticed that due to non-production of under-trial prisoners and non-availability of vans and sufficient petrol and dilapidated conditions of vehicles, administration of justice is likely to breakdown, and law and order situation of the State as a whole would suffer. The facts adverted to in the proceeding disclosed an alarming situation. In order to find a solution to the problems, a special Committee, consisting of Mr. Justice S. C. Mukhcrji, as Chairman, director-General-cum-IG. of Police, Bihar, Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, and the Inspector-General of Prisons, Bihar, was appointed. The Committee was directed to find out solution to the problems and submit a report. By order dated 13-12-93 it is clearly noticed that the reasons for the delay of criminal trials were due to Inadequate and absence of appropriate steps being taken on behalf of the State. It was noticed that vans in very many districts were in hopeless condition, etc. Subsequently, reports were also called for from the various District Judges. By order dated 13-12-93 it is clearly noticed that the reasons for the delay of criminal trials were due to Inadequate and absence of appropriate steps being taken on behalf of the State. It was noticed that vans in very many districts were in hopeless condition, etc. Subsequently, reports were also called for from the various District Judges. There are 51 Revenue Districts in this Sttte but the Judicial Districts are only 40. Justice Mukherji submitted a detailed report. Affidavits were also filed by Mr. Justice Mukherji disclosed that in 17 districts prisoners vans were available, some of these vans required repairs, vans in four districts required major repairs, vans in 8 districts were beyond repairs and in respect of 10 districts, new vans had to be purchased The report further states that funds should be made available for repair of old vans, replacement of hopeless vans by purchasing new ones and to purchase new vans where vans are not available. The further report submitted by Justice Mr Mukherji on 14-1-94 disclosed that 8 medium size troop carriers have been allotted to 8 districts and proposal for purchase of 10 new vans were under active consideration of the Government, etc. It is further stated that in 17 districts, where prisoners vans were available but required repairs, steps have already been taken and some of the vans have been repaired. Appropriate directions were prayed for. 2. It came to light that apart from the above, for no reason under trial prisoners were not produced in many districts. At least in 4 districts, due to non-availability of handcuffs and shortage of escort party, prisoners were not produced. 3. On the basis of the interim report of Justice Mr. Mukherji and the reports received from the District Judges and after perusal of the affidavits and supplementary affidavits filed by the respondents, the matter was heard from time to time. Learned Advocate-General appeared for the State. This Court appointed Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, a Senior counsel, as amicus curlae. 4. The various proceedings passed by this Court, reports received from the District Judges, interim and final reports submitted by Justice mr. Mukherji and the submissions made by Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan amicus curiae, disclosed that administration of criminal justice in the courts in Bihar State is really in shambles. The situation is alarming. There is a huge pendency of criminal cases. Mukherji and the submissions made by Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan amicus curiae, disclosed that administration of criminal justice in the courts in Bihar State is really in shambles. The situation is alarming. There is a huge pendency of criminal cases. Sessions cases were pending in many districts for more than seven or eight years, in a good number, and it appeared as if no body is concerned with the matter. This Court felt that this state of affairs will ultimately lead to a point of no return and law and order situation is likely to be affected in a deplorable manner. The various counter-affidavits filed by the State and its officers only stated that steps are being taken or initiated to see that the defects point out are attended to but there was no clear assurance or time bound programme and so we directed the State Government to file an affidavit stating the time within which the deficiencies will be made good In this regard the affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Police (Home), dated 8-4-94 and also the supplementary affidavit dated 18-4-94 are important. Alarmed by the prevailing situation, the Chief Justice called for details of pending sessions cases from the District Judges, the duration of delay, the reasons for the delay, etc. Reports so received were tabulated by the registry and the details are contained in Annexure a which forms part of this order. It disclosed alarming long pendency of cases, huge arrears and warranted urgent action. Accordingly, a conference of District Judges and top officials of the State Government connected with administration of criminal justice was convened in which judges of the High Court also took part The Resolutions adopted at the conference so held on 24-4-94 were discussed and curative measures were suggested to meet the situation by a monitoring committee consisting of the Judges and officers and the minutes recorded in that behalf is Annexure b, which forms part of this order. On behalf of the Government, Additional Secretary, Department of Police (Home) has undertaken to do the following : (i) The Government will implement the recommendation of the chairman of the Special Committee constituted by order of this court dated 27-9-93 and steps have been taken for implementation of the recommendations Annexure a filed along with the affidavit of 8-4-94 referred to the various districts, by serial numbers, in the steps required to be taken therein or the steps already initiated in that behalf. (ii) In 19 districts prisoners vans have been put in working order- (serials I to 19); (iii) In the districts of Katihar, Khagaria and Samastipur (sl. nos.20 to 22) vans are being repaired. Alternative arrangements have been made by the providing medium size prisoners vans. It will be completed within three months. (iv) In the districts covered by sls.23 to 32 (of annexure a) new vehicles are being purchased and orders have been placed therefor. They will be mare available within six weeks Till then troop carriers have been pressed into service in the said districts tor movement of prisoners from one place to another. In the districts covered by serials 33 to 42 new wire meshed covered troop carriers have been provided to be utilised as prisoners vans. (v) In the districts specified as sis.43 to 51, new vehicles are being made available since old vehicles are condemned Replacement shall take place within six months. Meanwhile alternative arrangements are being made for movement of prisoners. (vi) The delay of trials due to absconding accused, non-production of officials and other witnesses and non-cooperation and apathy of the police administration are being cured and steps are being taken to monitor and remove these lapses. Annexure a annexed to the affidavit dated 8-4-94 contains various regarding the vans and their conditions in 51 districts. 5. We record the undertakings given by the Secretary to Government in the two affidavits dated 8 4 94 and 18 4-94. We expect the administration to act as per the undertakings without fail. In the light of the undertaking given to this Court in the two affidavits, we heard the matter further. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, amicus curiae, Mr. Chandramauli Kumar prasad, Additional Advocate-General, argued on various aspects. We expect the administration to act as per the undertakings without fail. In the light of the undertaking given to this Court in the two affidavits, we heard the matter further. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, amicus curiae, Mr. Chandramauli Kumar prasad, Additional Advocate-General, argued on various aspects. During the hearing it was represented to us by a few lawyers, particularly counsel for the State, that in many districts the Prosecutors and Addl Prosecutors, are not properly and punctually paid for sessions cases and other criminal cases and there is laxity on their part and also on the part of the police officials and departmental witnesses and so such sitution should also be remedied. We requested the President of the Advocates Association Mr. S. P. Mukberji to assist us It turned out that the fees paid to the Government pleaders, Government Advocates, Addl Government Advocates, Public prosecutors, etc are very meagre and that has contributed to discontentment of counsel appearing for the Government What is more, even the meagre fees due to the counsel are not paid in time and they are driven from pillar to post to receive them The machinery in that regard is cumbersome, slack and unbusinesslike. Learned Advocate-General also appeared and an affidavit of the Secretary, Law Department, dated 16-5-94 was filed. The learned Advocate General discused the matter with the officers on our request regarding the fees paid the counsel appearing for the State. The fees now paid were fixed in 1974 (20 years ago) Long ago it should have been revised Now, the Government themselves felt that a revision is called for and they have proposed a revision of the fees. The said affidavit contains the details regarding the fees paid to the counsel appearing for the State Government in the High Court and also in the district courts at present, (as fixed in 1974) and also the proposed new scale of fees. It is as follows: 5_583_BLJ2_1994.htm 2. Daily Fes 1. Advocate-General, Bihar For hearing 805.00 1047.00 For admission 406.00 530.00 2. Government Advocate for hearing 450.00 585.00 for admission 150.00 195.00 3. Government Pleader & Standing Counsel for hearing 300.00 390.00 for admission 75.00 98.00 4. Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader in the districts 60.00 90.00 5. Addl Public Prosecutor and Assistant Govt. Pleader in the district 40.00 60.00 6. Addl. Public Prosecutor in High Court 100.00 125.00 3. Government Advocate for hearing 450.00 585.00 for admission 150.00 195.00 3. Government Pleader & Standing Counsel for hearing 300.00 390.00 for admission 75.00 98.00 4. Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader in the districts 60.00 90.00 5. Addl Public Prosecutor and Assistant Govt. Pleader in the district 40.00 60.00 6. Addl. Public Prosecutor in High Court 100.00 125.00 3. Fees of Junior Counsel iunior counsel of the Advocate General, Addl. Advocate General, Government Advocate, Pleader and Standing Counsel for hearing 50.00 75.00 for admission 32.00 48.00 For preparing drafts of grounds of first appeal, second appeal, Misc Civil Revision, Writ application and other cases 32.00 (per case) 48.00 (per case) Stay application, injunction, substitution counter-affidavit and other interlocutory matters 16.00 (consolida ted fee for all cases per day) 24.00 ( consolida ded fee for all cases per day) (4) In addition to the above, for an admission case in which hearing exceeds more than one day and admitted later on, only due fee will be admissible to the Law Officers which is admissible to them in case of dismissal of such cases. It is stated that the enhancement in the fees as proposed to be paid to the counsel will be effective when the Government passes an order to that effect. How much time it will take in anybodys guess. 6 On the other hand, Mr. Mukherji, President of the Advocates association, submitted before us a note dated 18 5 94 standing therein the present fees and the revised fees that will be desirable in the following scales. 6_583_BLJ2_1994.htm The Advocate-General, Government Advocate, Government Pleader and Standing Counsel are not paid any fee for consultation or giving opinion or for settlement of drafts and for appear in interlocutory matters under the heading for orders where normally they appear in interlocutory matters and important order is passed after full-fledged argument It is desirable that the aforesaid law officer be paid additional fee for settlement of drafts and for appearance in interlocutory matter and under the beading for orders. Half of the fee, which is paid to them for appearing in admission matter. Half of the fee, which is paid to them for appearing in admission matter. 7 We are satisfied that the advocates fees fixed as early as 1974, nearly 20 years ago, are very low It should be suitably revised, taking into account, the inflation, increased cost of living increased infrastructure required in the profession and the modern standards in living style The proposed revision and enhancement by the State is only an increase by 50 per cent of 1974 rates. In some cases, it is only 30 per cent. The percentage of enhancement has been made on an ad hoc basis It is not fixed on any scientific basis nor after evaluating the work qualitatively and quantitatively. We indicated to the Advocate-General that the enhancement proposed is too meagre It is not at all commensurate with the modern requirements and trends, to attract the best talent to conduct cases on behalf of the Government in an effective and proper way There is a move to introduce central parity of pay in all State government services The Law Agency, which is in charge of conducting the cases of the Union Government in the Supreme Court and other Courts, has fixed a scale of fees for the counsel appearing on behalf of the Government. We have not been furnished those details. There is no reason why the said scale of fees should not be adopted for the counsel appearing in the states. The learned Advocate-General has submitted the following for our consideration : (i) Fixation of fees for the counsel appearing for the State in various courts is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court; (ii) The point does not directly arise; (iii) It is for the Government to fix fees of the counsel; (iv) The proposed revision is reasonable; (v) The capacity of the State Government is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. The Bihar State is not in a position to pay higher fees. 8. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, amlcus curiae, appointed by the Court, and Mr S. P. Mukherji, President, Advocates Association, submitted that the steps taken by the Government to remove the lapses and deficiencies regarding want of vans, petrol, etc as given in the undertaking may be sufficient but in the absence of appropriate and suitable enhancement in the fees paid to counsel, the situtation will not improve and so the matter requires attention. Mr Khan suggested a minimal sum of Rs 3500/- to be paid to each counsel per mensem This appears to be a very reasonable request. It was also stated that the fees payable to counsel is not paid in time. There is inordinate delay. The sole reason is stated to be want of funds. It is a matter of common knowledge that funds are provided for all other unnecessary matters That is obvious. It was also submitted by Mr Khan and Mr. Mukherji that there is heavy rush in the profession and taking advantage of the large number of persons competing for the Governments briefs, the Government is exploiting the situation. The members of the bar are indirectly compelled to submit to unconscionable or unreasonable bargain. In other words, the bar has no option in view of heavy competition but to accept whatever little is paid, though far below the living wages. Our attention was drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water transport Corporation Ltd V/s. Brojo Nath Ganguly and others, AIR 1980 sc 1571 and stress was laid on Article 21 of the Constitution of India also. 9. We are aware of the fact that the relationship between the government and its counsel is a contractual one. Ordinarily, Government cannot be compelled to pay fees as stipulated by its counsel, or any other person But we are faced with an extraordinary situation herein, the administration of criminal justice is in shambles. It will affect law and order situation. A breakdown on that score will be disastrous This Court cannot shut its eyes to the realities and the glaring fact inadequate and improper representation on behalf of the prosecution is one of the important factors, which has really impeded or affected the administration of criminal justice in this State. We hope that it is high time that the Government realise its duty and responsibility on this score. Government themselves have felt that the fees now paid are low and it calls for revision. The need for revision is admitted this is very important. Only the quantum of increases is in issue In this perspective the pleas taken by the Advocate-General do not carry conviction. Government themselves have felt that the fees now paid are low and it calls for revision. The need for revision is admitted this is very important. Only the quantum of increases is in issue In this perspective the pleas taken by the Advocate-General do not carry conviction. Moreover, this Court is concerned with proper and speedier trial of criminal cases, which alone will guarantee maintenance of law and order and looked at from that angle, this Court has a duty to appraise the realities and remind the authorities to discharge their statutory and public duties and mandates of the Constitution effectively and not make the guarantees a mere farce. This is an additional ground to hold that the pleas taken by the advocate-General are not substantial Proper remuneration to counsel appearing on behalf of the Government is a sine qua non to facilitate speedier, effective and purposeful trial of sessions and criminal cases. We are candidly of this view. Law and order should be properly maintained, it is the duty of all concerned to guarantee the said requirements. To achieve tht said goal, effective and speedier trials of criminal cases should be facilitated by the State. Payment of proper fees is an incentive to counsel. That cannot be denied. The authorities concerned should realise that the proposed enhancement is only by 50 per cent and 30 per cent in few cases, that was fixed in 1974 This is totally inadequate. In the Official publication india, 1993, a Reference Annual, Publication of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, at pages 299-300 Consumer Price Index for urban non manual employees is given. It is as follows : table 12.10 Consumer Price Index Number for Urban Non-Manual Employees, 9_583_BLJ2_1994.htm The above formula is a technical one. By generous and useful assistance given to us by Dr. O. Prastd, Sr. Joint Director, Directorate of 1. Average is based on 7 indices (April 1987, October 1987) 2. A new series of index numbers on Base may be converted to Old Base by multiplying the conversion factor in respect of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras Delhi/new Delhi, are 5 38, 4 31, 5.77 and 5 08, respectively. Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, and Dr J K. Sinha, Deputy Director, directorate of Statistics and Evaluation. Bihar, we understand the position thus. A new series of index numbers on Base may be converted to Old Base by multiplying the conversion factor in respect of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras Delhi/new Delhi, are 5 38, 4 31, 5.77 and 5 08, respectively. Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, and Dr J K. Sinha, Deputy Director, directorate of Statistics and Evaluation. Bihar, we understand the position thus. In 1973 74 the consumer price index for All India is 221 If it is technically worked out on the basis of the table given, it will be 420 in 1991-92 It should be a little more in 1974 Consumer price is nearly double today compared to the figure in 1973-74 when it was only 221. This affords a legal and scientific basis to fix the fees at least at double rate that was fixed in 1974 But that is the very minimal That should be forthwith paid. The fees paid at that minimal are the present figures, worked out on the basis of 1974 fixation of fees The requirement herein is an appropriate upward revision. What is that figure How should it be fixed Who would do so ? these are many aspects to be considered on that score Only professionals can appreciate the problem. Professionals should be consulted The Chairman of the Bar Council, the President of the Advocates Association, the advocate-General of the State are the persons to be consulted and their opinion should prevail. We hold so. We are of the view that this is a matter on which the State Government should apply its mind not on an ad hoc basis or in a vacuo but in a real business sense, keeping in view the demands of the profession in modern tiroes. We hold so. We are of the view that this is a matter on which the State Government should apply its mind not on an ad hoc basis or in a vacuo but in a real business sense, keeping in view the demands of the profession in modern tiroes. A committee of experts in the profession, as stated above, should be entrusted with the task to work out details within a period of 3 months besides the above, the amount payable to the Government Council in all courts should be made available at least within a period of two months from the date on which it falls due and there should be no delay in the payment of fees at all Only if the above realities are reckoned, the wheels will move without impediment or obstruction so as to facilitate speedier, effective and proper administration of criminal justice We direct the Government to consider the above matters without undue delay (at least within 3 months)and take proper steps. The undertaking giv n in the affidavits dated 8-4-94 and 18-4-94 should be complied with The hardship of the Counsel appearing for the State should be redressed These matters should be given effect to within a period of three months from today. 10 Before closing. we want to advert to one aspect highlighted by all counsel, that was noticed in Government file, in considering the payment of enhanced fees to Government counsel The then Additional Financial commissioner has made certain observations in the file completely condemning the counsel appearing for the State and has even attributed want of bona fides, collusion with opposite side, etc besides inefficiency. Such sweeping remarks are unfounded and have no basis and should be deprecated. We do so. We required the presence of the officer to explain but he was not available. We hold that the sweeping general remarks scandalising the profession was unjustified, unbecoming and should stand self-condemned 11. For passing final orders the writ petition will be posted to 30 8.94. The State Government shall file an affidavit showing the compliance of the various undertakings and other directions contained in this order. 12. We are grateful to the following persons who assisted the Court in a great measure in this proceeding and we place on record the useful services rendered by them at various stages. 12_583_BLJ2_1994.htm ANNEXURE-B SI. The State Government shall file an affidavit showing the compliance of the various undertakings and other directions contained in this order. 12. We are grateful to the following persons who assisted the Court in a great measure in this proceeding and we place on record the useful services rendered by them at various stages. 12_583_BLJ2_1994.htm ANNEXURE-B SI. No. Name of Judgeship Total No. cases pending as on 1.4.94 Earliest/ Oldest cases yearwise Reason for delay in disposal of cases Number of cases each Sessions Judge can dispose in a year Number of Sessions Judges available at the district including District & Sessions Judges. A. D. J & Asstt . Sessions Judge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Katihar 1316 cases ? Delay in disposal of ? ? ? ? ? ? cases due to common reasons: ( i ) Non-appearance of accused, (ii) Non-production of official witnesses, (iii) Non-availability of case diaries. ? ? 2. Madhepure 949 cases ? 1977-2 cases 1981- 4 cases 1982-1 cases 1984-10 cases 1985-6 cases 1986-83 cases 1987-86 cases 1988-53 cases 1989-86 cases 1990-61 cases 1991-98 cases 1992-113 cases -do- 55 to 60 cases per year on the average ? 4 including District & Sessions Judge. 3. Begusarai 2677 cases 1975-1 case 1976-1 case 1978-3 cases 1979-1 case 1981-1 case 1982-1 case 1990-1 case Non-appearance of accused 50 cases per year on the average ? 3 ? 4. Gumla 1342 cases ? ? ? ? 5. Dumka 1136 cases 1986-20 cases 1987-34 cases 1988-30 cases 1989-12 cases 1990-107 case 1980-8 cases 1981-3 cases 1982-6 cases 1983-10 cases 1984-15 cases 1985-16 cases ? Due to ( i ) Non-appearance of accused. (ii) Nonappearance of official witnesses. 36 cases on the average per court per year ? ? 7 Jud ges including Disk & Sessions Judge. 6. Bettiah ( West Champaran ) 2089 1980-2 cases 1981-3 cases 1982-5 cases 1983-11 cases 1984-17 cases do 48 cases on the average per year ? 6 1985-33 cases 1986-38 cases 1987-92 cases 1988-89 cases 1989-181 cases 1990-171 cases 1991-289 cases 1992-401 cases ? ? 7. Munger 2196 1981-23 cases 1982-41 cases 1983-112 cases 1984-128 cases 1985-283 cases 1986-294 cases 1987-296 cases 1988-268 cases 1989-318 cases 1990-346 cases 1991-245 cases 1992-261 cases do ? 42 cases per 5 " year per Judge on the average 8. 6 1985-33 cases 1986-38 cases 1987-92 cases 1988-89 cases 1989-181 cases 1990-171 cases 1991-289 cases 1992-401 cases ? ? 7. Munger 2196 1981-23 cases 1982-41 cases 1983-112 cases 1984-128 cases 1985-283 cases 1986-294 cases 1987-296 cases 1988-268 cases 1989-318 cases 1990-346 cases 1991-245 cases 1992-261 cases do ? 42 cases per 5 " year per Judge on the average 8. Muzaffarpur 2697 1970-1 casee 1971-2 cases 1973-1 cases 1976-9 cases 1977-8 cases 1978-6 cases 1979-15 cases 1980-6 cases 1981-6 cases 1982-11 cases 1983-17 cases 1984-27 cases 1985-35 cases 1986-54 cases 1987-57 cases 1988-192 cases 1989-387 cases (a) No appearance of accused, (b) Non- appearane of officia witnesses (c) Inadequate number of Sessions Court 48 cases 7 " per year on the average ? 9. Nalanda at 3728 Biharsharif 113 Old cases Do ? ? 50 cases per 13 " year on the average 10. East Cham - 3053 paran at Motibari 1975-2 cases 1976-2 cases 1977-10 cases (a) Non-service of summons on witnesses (b) Non-attendance of official witnesses 50 cases on 6 " the average per Judge per year. ? 11. Saran at 3465 Cbapra 1974-2 cases 1976-3 cases 1977-12 cases 1978-20 cases ? 1979-16 cases 1980-40 cases 1981 -36 cases 1982-76 cases 1983 107 cases 1984-45 cases 1985-114 cases 1986-72 cases 1987-121 cases 1988-298 cases 1989-275 cases 1990-297 cases ? 50 cases 6 " per Judge per year ? (a) Inadequate number of courts (b) non-appearance of absconding accused (c) non-production of case diaries. (d) non-appearance of official witnesses. ? 12. Godda 1046 1974-1 case 1975-2 cases 1976-1 case 1978-8 cases 1979-2 cases 1980-8 cases 1981-11 cases 1982-4 cases 1983-29 cases 1984-44 cases 1985-22 cases 1986-126 cases 1987- 29 cases 1988-15 cases 1989- 115 cases 1990-123 cases 1991-146 cases 1992-40 cases (a)non-at- tendance of official witnesses (b)non-appearance of absconding accused (c) insufficient number of courts. 50 cases per 4" Judge per year . 13. Sitamarhi 1096 1981-2 cases 1982-1 case (a) non-appearance of accused. 40-44 cases 5" ? per year per Judge on the Average. 14. Ranchi 4642 1971-1 case 1974-1 case 1975-1 case 1977-2 cases 1978-4 cases 1979-10 cases 1980-14 cases 1981-13 cases 1982-87 cases 1983 87 cases 1984-78 cases 1985-102 cases 1986-176 cases 1987 235 cases 1988-230 cases 1989-344 cases (a) non-production of official witnesses (b) non- appearan of absconding accused 50 cases per 10" Judge per year ? 15. 14. Ranchi 4642 1971-1 case 1974-1 case 1975-1 case 1977-2 cases 1978-4 cases 1979-10 cases 1980-14 cases 1981-13 cases 1982-87 cases 1983 87 cases 1984-78 cases 1985-102 cases 1986-176 cases 1987 235 cases 1988-230 cases 1989-344 cases (a) non-production of official witnesses (b) non- appearan of absconding accused 50 cases per 10" Judge per year ? 15. Sahebganj 1329 1974-6 cases 1975-6 cases 1976-9 cases 1977-6 cases 1978-7 cases 1979-24 cases 1980-15 cases 1981-9 cases 1982-24 cases 1983-20 cases 1984-32 cases 1985-28 cases 1986-83 cases 1987-55 cases 1988-56 cases 1989-66 cases 1990-89 cases 1991-63 cases 1992-276 cases (a)non-appearance of absconding accused (b) non-production of official witnesses 50-60 cases on ? the average per Judge per year. 3" 16. Nawada 1621 1984-118 cases 1985-51 cases 1986-46 cases 1987-49 cases 1988-124 cases 1989-437 cases 1990-167 cases 1991-151 cases 1992-183 cases (a) non-production of witness (b) Inadequate number of courts 48 cases per Judge per year on the average. ? 4" 17. Paiamau at Daltonganj 2347 ? beyond 1984-12 cases 1984-88 cases 1985-122 cases 1986-156 cases 1987-161 cases 1988-241 cases 1989-168 cases 1990-188 cases 1991-195 cases 1992-360 cases 1993-505 cases (a) inadequate number of courts, (b) non-production official Witnesses (c) non-co-operation of Police Administration (d) delaying attitude of law- yers . 55 cases per Judge per per year on the average. ? ? 18 Patna ? 6747 ? 1970-3 cases 1971-14 cases 1972-11 cases 1973-19 cases 1974-13 cases 1975-45 cases 1976-34 cases 1977-37 cases 1978-28 case 1979-71 cases 1980-89 cases 1981-163 casses 1982-124 cases 1983- 252 cases 1984-409 cases 1989-193 cases 1986-344 cases 1987-451 cases 1988-536 cases 1989-580 cases 1990-426 cases 1991-743 cases 1992-1043 cases (a) non-pro- duction of witnesses (b) non-production of accused. 40 cases per Judge per year on the average. ? ? 22 including Asstt . Sessions Judges 19. Katihar 1316 1981-4 cases 1982-1 cases 1983-3 cases 1984-4 cases 1985-10 cases 1986-18 case 1987-36 cases 1988-263 cases 1989-153 cases 1990-151 cases 1991-156 cases 1992-213 cases (a) Non-appearance of absconding accused (b) Non-production of official cases. ? 50 cases per Judge per year on the average. ? ? 4 includ ing 2 Asstt . Judges 20 Dhanbad 2693 1968-1 case (a) Non-appearance of absconding accused. (b) Non-production of official witnesses. 40-45 cases per Judge per year on the average. ? 6 ? 21. Saharsa 1789 yearwise break-up of old cases not given . ? 50 cases per Judge per year on the average. ? ? 4 includ ing 2 Asstt . Judges 20 Dhanbad 2693 1968-1 case (a) Non-appearance of absconding accused. (b) Non-production of official witnesses. 40-45 cases per Judge per year on the average. ? 6 ? 21. Saharsa 1789 yearwise break-up of old cases not given . (a) non-production of official witnesses (b) No-co-operation of Police Admn . 42 cases per Judge per year. ? 4 ? 22. Darbhanga ? 1608 case 1977-2 cases 1978-3 " 1979-3 " 1980-6 " 1981-17 " 1982-14 " 1983-12 " 1984-19 " 1972-1 case 1975-1 case 1976-1 case ? (a) Non-production of official witnesses (b) Non-co-operation of Police Admn . (c) Lingering attitude of lawyers (d) Inadequate number of courts 50 cases average per Judge per ? year ? 7 including 3 Asstt . Sessions Judges. 23. Deoghar 730 1978-1 case 1982-7 " 1985-1 " 1988-3 " (a) Non-production of official witnesses (b) Non-co-operation of Police Admn . 36 cases on the average per Judge per year 5 Including 2 Asstt Sessions Judges 24. West Singh- 1538 bhum at Chaibasa 1972-1 case 1976-1 " 1977-1 " 1978-1 " 1981-1 " 1982-3 cases 1983-8 " 1984-6 " 1985-10 " 1986-34 " 1987-23 " 1988-61 " 1989-148 " 1990-143 " 1991-221 " 1992-381 " (a) Non-production of official witnesses (b) Non-execution of processes. (c) Shortage of Stenographers. 40 cases per Judge per year on average 9 25. Madhubani 1847 1972-1 case 1975-2 cases 1976-1 case 1978-6 cases 1979-16 cases 1980-24 cases 1681-56 cases 1982-58 cases 1983-78 cases 1984-67 cases 1985-64 cases 1986-74 cases 1987-133 cases 1988-143 cases 1989-154 cases 1990-228 cases 1991-251 cases 1992-211 cases 1993-230 cases (a) Non-production of official witnesses (b) Insufficient no. of courts. ? 60 cases per Judge per year on average. 3 26. Gopalganj 2130 1984-521 cases 1985-742 1986-981 " 1987-1028 " 1988-1039 " 1989-1204 " 1990-1324 " 1991-1591 " 1992-1675 " (a) Non-appearance of absoonding acoused . (b) Non-production of official witnesses. (c) Non-co-operation of Police. (d) Non-availability of case diary. 45 cases per Judge per year on average. 6 including 2 Asst. Sessions Judges. 27. Buxar 1451 1982 (no other cases has been referred) (a) Insufficient number of courts, (b) Non-production of official witnesses. (c) Non-receipt of police case 25 cases per Judge per year 25 including 2 Asstt . Sessions Judge. 28. (d) Non-availability of case diary. 45 cases per Judge per year on average. 6 including 2 Asst. Sessions Judges. 27. Buxar 1451 1982 (no other cases has been referred) (a) Insufficient number of courts, (b) Non-production of official witnesses. (c) Non-receipt of police case 25 cases per Judge per year 25 including 2 Asstt . Sessions Judge. 28. Aurangabad 2221 1972-1 case 1980-19 cases 1911-60 " 1983-39 " 1984-79 " 1985-103 " 1986-72 " 1987-165 " 1988-204 " 1989-189 " 1990-377 " 1991-306 " 1992-241 " -do- ? 35 cases per Judge per year 6 including 2 Asstt . Sessions Judge. 29. Oaya 2427 1978-1 case 1980-1 "1981-3 cases 1982-14 " 1983-16 " 1984-23 " 1985-72 " 1986-83 " (a) Non-production of official witnesses due to non-co-operation of Police (b) Non- 48-60 cases per year per Judge per year. 6 ? ? 1987-200 " 1988-188 " 1989-165 " 1990-269 " 1991-306 " 1992-431 " appearance of absconding accused. ? ? 30. Bhojpur ( Ara ) 2667 1977-2 cases 1980-2 " 1982-1 case 1983-1 " (a) Non-production of official witnesses, (b) Insufficient number of courts (c) Non-appearance of absconding accused. 32 cases per year Judge on the average ? 5 ? 31. Samastipur 1625 1968-2 cases 1971-2 " 1972-1 case 1973-2 cases 1974-2 " 1976-2 " 1977-13 " 1978-9 " 1979-11 " 1980-9 " 1981-20 " 1982-26 " 1983-50 " 1984-57 " 1985-26 " 1986-61 " 1987-59 " 1988-64 " 1989-172 " 1990-401 " (a) Non-supply of case diaries time (b) Non-appearance of absconding accused, (c) Non-appearance of official witnesses. (d) Non-cooperation of police machinery. 40 cases per Judge per year on the average ? ? 8 including 3 Asstt Sessions Judges. 32. Oiridih 2003 1977-9 cases 1978-13 " 1979-17 " 1980-13 " 1981-17 " 1982-29 " 1983-11 " 1984-16 " 1985-69 " 1986-52 " 1987-87 " 1988-103 " 1989-200 " 1990-116 " (a) Non-appearance of witnesses and of absconding accused, (b) Non-service of processes, 60 cases per year per Judge ? ? 7 in cluding 3 Asstt . Judges. 33 Sasaram ( Rohtas ) 3290 1975-1case 1976- 1cases 1977-13 cases 1978-32 " 1979-9 " 1980-26 " 1981-33 " 1982-62 " 1983-94 " 1984-86 " 1985-220 " 1986-214" 1987-99 " 1988-223 " 1989-350 " 1990-300 " 1991-287 " 1992-455 " (a) Non production of official witnesses, (b) Non-execution of processes (c) Insufficiency of number of courts and staff. Judges. 33 Sasaram ( Rohtas ) 3290 1975-1case 1976- 1cases 1977-13 cases 1978-32 " 1979-9 " 1980-26 " 1981-33 " 1982-62 " 1983-94 " 1984-86 " 1985-220 " 1986-214" 1987-99 " 1988-223 " 1989-350 " 1990-300 " 1991-287 " 1992-455 " (a) Non production of official witnesses, (b) Non-execution of processes (c) Insufficiency of number of courts and staff. 40-50 per Court per year 9 34. Singhbbum East at Jamshedpur 1220 1974-1 case 1978-3 cases 1979-4 " 1980-8 " 1981-17 " 1982-17 " 1983-6 " 1984-20 " 1985-32 " 1986-75 " 1987-60 " 1988-57 " 1989-132 " 1990-187 " ? (a) Non-production of official witnesses. (b) Non-execution of processes (c) Insufficiency of number of Courts and staff ? 40 cases per Courts per year 7 including 3 Asstt . Sessions Judges 35. Purnea 1906 1980-1 case 1981-2 cases 1982-3 " 1984-11 " 1985-31 " 1986-36 " 1987-51 " 1988-103 " 1989-204 " 1990-111" 1991-68 " (a) Non-appearance of absconding accused, (b) Non production of official witnesses. (c) Apathy of Police Administration (d) Insufficlent Courts and staff. 45 eases per Court pet year on the average ? 12 Including 5 Asstt . Session Judges. 36. Daltonganj ? 2347 ? 12 cases 1984-88 " 1985-122 " 1986-156 " 1987-161 1988-211 1989-168 1990-188 1991-195 1992-306 ? (a) Insufficient number of courts, (b) Preference given to disposal of case in which specific directions are given by High Court. (c) Nonproduction of witnesses by prosecution, (d) Apathy of Police Administration. 35 cases per Court per year on the average. ? ? 9 including 5 Asstt . Session Judges ?