JUDGMENT : 1. By our order dated 4.8.95 we had referred to the provisions in Section 6(4), 13 and 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Sections 260 and 261 thereof and had issued certain directions with a view to ensure that the machinery contemplated by those provisions could be put into effect with a view to clearing of the backlog of petty criminal cases and further relieving the regular magisterial Courts of that work so that it is able to attend to more serious business. Notices were issued to all the State Governments and Union territories except J & K and Sikkim as well as the Registrar of those High Courts to inform us of the state of affairs. Pursuant to the said notices some of the State Governments have filed affidavits. A statement of the contents of the affidavits has been presented before us by learned counsel Shri Mukul Mudgal. That reveals that so far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned it has not taken action to make a request to the High Court under Sections 13 and 18 of the Code on the plea that it has forwarded a proposal to the Central Government to amend Section 13 of the Code. This is no reason why the provisions cannot be put to use. We are not satisfied with this explanation. So far as Delhi is concerned it appears that there are almost 2 lac traffic cases pending in Magisterial Courts and yet it has not taken any action to appoint Judicial Magistrates of the 2nd class under Section 6(4), Metropolitan Magistrates under Section 18 of the Code and all these cases are stated to have been distributed amongst 88 Metropolitan Magistrates who are required to work from 2-00 p.m. to 5-00 p.m. on every working Saturday. Despite this arrangement there is this huge pendency and yet it is surprising that the provisions of Section 6(4) and Section 18 have remained unutilised. There is no explanation why the Administration has not taken the initiative and highly paid Metropolitan Magistrates are called upon to devote their time to these petty cases rather than attend to substantial work. The State of Allahabad also does not seem to have taken any initiative in this direction. There is no explanation why the Administration has not taken the initiative and highly paid Metropolitan Magistrates are called upon to devote their time to these petty cases rather than attend to substantial work. The State of Allahabad also does not seem to have taken any initiative in this direction. The idea is not to empower Executive Magistrates but to empower Judicial Magistrates 2nd Class, Sub-Judicial Magistrates 1st Class and Special Metropolitan Magistrates on whom powers are conferred by the High Court under the said provisions. The basic idea is that where the High Court confer power it will lend credibility and public will have confidence in the present functioning as Sub-Judicial Magistrate and Special Metropolitan Magistrate as the case may be. The State of West Bengal has not responded and the counsel is also not present. So far as the State of Karnataka is concerned even though the State Government has already taken the initiative and written to the High Court, it seems that the High Court has not yet finalised the proposal although sufficient time seems to have elapsed. So far as the State of Kerala is concerned it appears that the High Court has informed the State Government that in the prevailing circumstances there is no such appointment. The Registrar of the High has written a letter dated 11.9.95 stating the same. We are not satisfied because what we want to know is what is the basis on which the High Court has said that "there is at present no need to appoint Sub-Judicial Magistrates and/or Special Metropolitan Magistrates in the State." Do we understand that there are no pending traffic cases or petty cases falling under table I Section 320 of the Code which come within the category of Section 206 and 260 of the Code? The position needs to be clarified by an affidavit and not by letter writing. We would expect the Registrar of the High Court to obtain instructions from the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, thereafter place material before this Court on the basis on which it reached the above conclusion. 2. In the State of Himachal Pradesh the provisions have already been invoked and the High Court has framed Rules and has conferred powers on 3 officers. 2. In the State of Himachal Pradesh the provisions have already been invoked and the High Court has framed Rules and has conferred powers on 3 officers. The notifications issued in this behalf have been enclosed with the affidavit filed by the Deputy Magistrate of the High Court. Copies of these notifications may be given to counsel for the different States to enable them to forward the same to the respective High Courts as well as the State Governments to utilise them for the purposes of taking action in the matter. 3. On behalf of the State of Bihar the Registrar Central of the High Court has addressed a letter to the advocate stating that the Government has already moved the High Court to confer power on Judicial Magistrates, 2nd Class, as well as under Section 13 and the Standing Committee of the Court has decided to confer such power. The notifications in this behalf, however, do not appear to have been issued and it is not clear how this power is being exercised. We would expect the Registrar of the High Court to clarify the position. The information as regards the pendency is also not forthcoming. 4. The State of Punjab has also written to the High Court under Section 13 and 18 but it appears that the proposal has been pending before the High Court and appointments have not yet been made. The position needs to be clarified and action be taken without loss of time. 5. The State of Assam, it is reported, has appointed as many as 97 I.A. S. officers as Sub-Judicial Magistrates. The rest of the State Governments have not responded. We extend the time by four weeks to enable them to respond failing which we will take as non-compliance with this Court's order and proceed to pass such orders as we deem it appropriate for non-compliance. The Chief Secretaries Registrars those State Governments should be informed about the same. We do not appreciate why there is no response from those State Governments. Let the matter come up after four weeks.