R. B. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) IN Writ Petition No. 35956 of 1992, the petitioner prayed for a relief that the petitioner should be provided with the highest Z plus security failing which the Central Government, the State Government, I. AS. and I. P. S. officers will neither permit the petitioner to approach the Court and will get the petitioner killed by entangling the petitioner in some offence. The second relief prayed was that in accordance with the constitutional machinery of the country, the petitioner is praying to the Court that respondents may be asked to explain their encounter policy, and facts in the said regard may be fully looked into. The third relief claimed in the petition was that an enquiry be Tconducted by a Judicial Officer regarding all the cases pending against the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner filed an affidavit. In Writ Petition No. 37064 of 1992, the Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and S. S. P. , Kanpur City, Kanpur were arrayed as respondents and a relief was prayed that in presence of some Judicial Officer, the petitioner be permitted to run his business of Scooter Stand and publication of Kanpur Crime Reporter or the officers, who are indulging in violating the honour of the Court and, are professionally humiliating the Court should be directed to ensure continuance of the petitioners aforesaid business. Second relief prayed in this petition was that the petitioner should be permitted in accordance with the concept of equality provided in the Indian Constitution to earn money by killing people for which the petitioner is competent and which the petitioner has proved by standing in the Court on 15th October, 1992 that the petitioner is capable of doing the same as has been done by the police by killing 20,000 people and thereby earning money or getting money on the basis of arranging these murders. Special relief prayed in the petition was that the Hontble Court may pass such orders against such professional killers so that they may realise that the judiciary of the country has its own honour and the persons indulging in deteriorating the said honour are not to be spared as has been done by Calcutta High Court in its decision reported in AI. R page 135 of 1992 holding that the Court cannot be spectator of permitting anybody to do wrong. ( 2 ) THE reliefs prayed for are in a very peculiar and vague words and do not make out any sense as to what the petitioner prayed for. However, the aforesaid writ petitions were registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions in this Court and notices were issued to the respondents to me their counter affidavits. Both the matters have been heard together for a long period of four years by different Courts and the petitioners conduct is mainly responsible for this inordinate delay in deciding the case as whenever a Court wanted to hear the matter, the petitioner had been indulging in making baseless and false allegations not only against the Judges of this Court but also against the Chief Justice of this Court and entire judicial system and indulging himself even in abusing the Judges, Chief Justice of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The petitioner had also throughout been moving one application or the other making several grievances during the pendency of the matter and on above application the Court asked for a counter affidavit, the bulk of the case at present is contained in hundreds of pages, the details whereof, in short, will be given hereinafter. ( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding with the applications and affidavits which the petitioner has been filing from time to time, it is necessary to mention the contents of the petitions themselves. In Writ Petition No. 35956 of 1992, the petitioner stated that Annexures Til and 2 of the petition may be looked into. Annexure I to the petition is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 32993 of 1984 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 99102 of 1983. In this criminal petition also, the petitioner made allegations that the police are murdering persons in the shape of encounters to earn money and they themselves create terrorism and conditions for victimising the people. It was also alleged that the police also murder people who oppose their policies and implicate them in false cases and destroy the lives of those persons and their families. In this category, he claimed himself to be a glaring example of victimisation. The application further referred that despite the order passed by Honble Mr. It was also alleged that the police also murder people who oppose their policies and implicate them in false cases and destroy the lives of those persons and their families. In this category, he claimed himself to be a glaring example of victimisation. The application further referred that despite the order passed by Honble Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji on 13/1/1984, to provide the petitioner a security guard, the security guard has not been provided. A request was made in this application that the petitioner be provided with the security guard for the safety of the petitioners life. This application is dated 31/1/1984. Annexure 2 to the petition is a Questionaire which has been filed by the petitioner making allegations against the police that they are indulging in getting murders done and the questions were framed as to whether the Constitution permits a police officer to kill people for money. The third paragraph of the petition is incomplete. It only says that the petitioner made a request before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The next sentence is incomplete. Then some questions have been put in the petition again repeating the story which are mentioned in the questionnaire filed as Annexure 2. Question No. 2 in this petition is to the effect that in case the Court does not call for the Government and its officers to explain the questions asked for, then it will be presumed that the judiciary is also a party directly or indirectly, in the murders of the people by the police. Third paragraph of the petition says that the petitioner is ready to say so many things and he has many facts with him which he will be telling the Court on being asked. This is all what is contained in the first petition. ( 4 ) IN the second petition being Writ Petition No. 37064 of 1992, paragraph 1 states that the Court had not granted licence on 15/10/1992 for the murder of the petitioner, the date on which the petitioner made an application for regaining his lost property and for increasing his income. Whatever the Court has done, must be right. ( 4 ) IN the second petition being Writ Petition No. 37064 of 1992, paragraph 1 states that the Court had not granted licence on 15/10/1992 for the murder of the petitioner, the date on which the petitioner made an application for regaining his lost property and for increasing his income. Whatever the Court has done, must be right. Para graph 2 of the petition says that Annexures T1t 2 and 3 will show that the only source of the earning of the petitioner was a licence for Scooter Stand which was being run in the name of the petitioners mother which is lying closed for last 12 years. For this Gurdeep, Singh Sarna, Station Officer and Ajay Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector and some police Constables are responsible. Paragraph 3 stated that the aforesaid Scooter Stand got forcibly closed regarding which Honble Mr. Justice R. M: Sahai and Honble Mr. Justice R. P. Singh directed the Collector, S. S. P. and S. P. to permit the petitioner to continue and on petitioners moving a contempt petition, the petitioner was permitted to continue the Scooter Stand. Now the Scooter Stand is being run by the petitioners servants and on 17th August, 1991, when the petitioner was shot at, but was saved, the petitioner has been implicated in National Security Act. Later on, the petitioners servant Kamlesh was killed and the Scooter Stand was got closed at 3 p. m. All the cars and cycles were removed from the Scooter Stand. On the first occasion, several cars remained closed in the Scooter Stand and the people also supported the opening of the Scooter Stand. When the report was called on the same, it was reported that the Scooter Stand belongs to Kesar Devi, who is residing with her daughter, his son is squanderer and is in jail, his servants are not ready to continue and for this reason the Scooter Stand has been closed. The police has not got closed the Scooter Stand. The petitioner says that the report is not correct. The writ petition further stated that the correct fact is that since the petitioner has raised the issue of encounter, the encounters have come to a close and for depriving him from his livelihood the police has got the Scooter Stand closed. The police has not got closed the Scooter Stand. The petitioner says that the report is not correct. The writ petition further stated that the correct fact is that since the petitioner has raised the issue of encounter, the encounters have come to a close and for depriving him from his livelihood the police has got the Scooter Stand closed. They are jealous of him and are happy for getting his Scooter Stand closed and they are showing that they are superior authority and despite the orders of the High Court, they have got the Scooter Stand closed. They claimed themselves to be superior to the High Court. In paragraph8, it was stated that on 9th of September, 1982, one Bijjan was killed in the encounter, which was published in Crime Reporter, Kanpur, consequent thereto the newspaper has been closed and has not been permitted to be opened till today and the building in which the newspaper was being run has been demolished and a flat has been constructed thereon. The shopkeeper of the ground floor Mohan Lal Bhaskar has connived with the police and has filed a false report under Section 452, I. P. C. and the petitioner was sent to jail on 205-1986 with a plastered left hand and was implicated in Gangsters Act and was sent to Allahabad. Thereafter a flat was constructed. This flat was sold by the police at the cost of Rs. 50,000. 00 in the name of one Sushil. The petitioner was released after two months. After the petitioners release, nobody could occupy the aforesaid premises. On this Sri Yashpal Singh, S. S. P. suspended S. I. Satish Chandra Seth. Despite their best efforts, they could do nothing against the petitioner. In paragraph 10, the petitioner states that these professional murderers should be asked not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners newspaper in the aforesaid one room flat. Paragraph 11 of the petition is in the form of a question which says that the petitioner has no work to do on the basis of which the petitioner could earn his livelihood. Paragraph 11 of the petition is in the form of a question which says that the petitioner has no work to do on the basis of which the petitioner could earn his livelihood. The police department people, who are traitors of the country and are indulging in the act by getting people killed, had compelled the petitioner to move applications before the Court to permit the petitioner to earn money which application has been forwarded by the Court and the petitioner had no money to spend for maintaining his family and for doing pairvi of his cases. This is all the contents of this petition. ( 5 ) THE bulk of the record of the writ petitions discloses that the petitioner has moved several applications and affidavits. ( 6 ) A telegram sent by the petitioner, dated 12/7/1994 is also on record. Letters sent by the petitioner along With their envelops have been exhibited as Exts. 1, 2 and 3 and have been placed on record on 16/1/1996. In reply to the aforesaid applications and affidavits, the respondents have filed affidavits and counter affidavits. ( 7 ) THE order sheet of the Court II runs in more than hundred pages. Detailed orders have been passed on the petitioners applications whenever a grievance of any nature was made by the petitioner and the Court being conscious of the fact that the petitioner has made allegations though without any basis of killing of the citizen of the country on the basis of false encounters the issue involved for consideration in the petitions was of infringement of Human Rights and the country being a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -framed on the basis of the principles proclaimed in the charter of the United Nations and the universal declaration of rights. Preamble of our Constitution proclaims and recites the solemn resolve to secure to all a fundamental right of freedom, justice and peace and in view of the fact that basic feature of our Constitution is Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees that no citizen will be deprived of his life and liberty without - authority of law, the Court felt its obligation to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner regarding indulgence of police in killing of the citizens of the country by showing false encounters though the petitioner failed to place any proper materials before the Court to examine the allegations and though the petitioner had been indulging in making baseless and false allegations against the entire judicial system of the country and the petitioner has always been indulging in using abusive language against the Judges of this Court, the former Chief Justice of the Court and also against the Chief Justice of the country. All such allegations and applications made by the petitioner are on record of the case and since they are not relevant for the purposes of the decision of the petitioners, the details whereof are not being mentioned herein. The order sheet of the case shows the endeavour of the Court, being conscious of their obligations, in such matters. In order to allay any doubt in the mind of the petitioner that the judiciary of the country is not des-charging its obligations on a serious matter like killings of the citizens by showing false encounters, we asked Mr. L. P. Naithani, an eminent Senior Advocate and a human right activist, to assist the Court as an amicus curiae, but the petitioner refused to accept his appointment and insisted to argue the case-in person. ( 8 ) A detailed resume of the order sheet itself will increase the bulk of the judgment which is not required for ultimate decision of the cases, as such we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to give details of the orders passed by different Benches of this Court on different occasions which would also show that the matter was being pursued by the Court without any delay. At the cost of petition, it is being said that the delay, if any, as caused mainly due to misconduct and behaviour of the petitioner himself. At the cost of petition, it is being said that the delay, if any, as caused mainly due to misconduct and behaviour of the petitioner himself. However, to give a glimpse of the nature of grievances made by the petitioner from time to time and orders passed by this Court and also to give a glimpse of the conduct of the petitioner, a brief resume of the proceedings of the case is being given below. ( 9 ) THE first writ petition came up for orders for the first time before a Bench constituted by Honble R. R. K. Trivedi and Honble S. K. Verma, JJ, on 29-9-1992, The petitioner was granted time for filing supplementary affidavit on his request giving facts about his grievance, As stated earlier, the petition did not contain any specific grievance. On 15-10-1992, the matter came up before the same Bench on which date the petitioner was permitted to implead the Senior Supdt, of Police, Kanpur City as respondent No. 4. The Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner was permitted to file Supplementary Affidavit. The Court directed that the petitioner is permitted to live peacefully at his residence and the police will not harass the petitioner. ( 10 ) ON 11/2/1994, the matter came up before the Bench consisting of Honble N. L. Ganguly and Honble N. B. Asthana, JJ. The Bench observed that after hearing the petitioner in person for some time, it would not be proper to proceed further in the matter. Thereafter Honble the Chief Justice nominated the case to a Bench presided over by Honble Palok Basu, J. The matter was placed before a Bench presided over by Hon. Palok Basu, J. on 5/11/1992. The matter came up before the same Bench on 9/11/1992. The Bench observed that the petitioner is arguing in person and his arguments are not coherent. Despite repeatedly being asked as to what relief the petitioner wants, the answer was not clear. On the application moved by, the petitioner, the bench observed that the prayers made in the application are argumentative in nature and do not mention as to what interim relief the petitioner wants. Despite repeatedly being asked as to what relief the petitioner wants, the answer was not clear. On the application moved by, the petitioner, the bench observed that the prayers made in the application are argumentative in nature and do not mention as to what interim relief the petitioner wants. On the apprehension of the petitioner that he is apprehending his arrest, the Bench passed an order that in case the petitioner personally goes to the Senior Supdt, of Police, he may be provided police squad to come to Court on 25th of November, 1992, the date on which the case adjourned. ( 11 ) THE matter again came up before the Bench presided over by the Honble Basu, J. on 24/2/1994. In the meantime the Standing Counsel was granted time for filing counter affidavit. The Bench expressed its inability to hear the matter on the basis of an application moved by the petitioner and ordered that the matter may be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for nominating some other Bench. The case was directed to be placed before Honble the Chief Justice on 1/3/1994 at the request of the petitioner. The application moved by the petitioner is on the record which itself will show as to why it became necessary for the Court to release the matter. The application contained malicious allegations against the Bench, consequent thereto the Bench presided over by Honble Palok Basu, J. felt it proper to release the case. This was the second Bench which had to release the case. ( 12 ) THE Honble the Chief Justice thereafter directed that the matter should be placed before the Bench presided over by the Honble S. K. Mukherji, J. The matter came up before Hontble S. K. Mukherji. J. on 1/3/1994. On the said date, the Bench passed an order that it will not be necessary to record the reasons which may prejudice the case of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the papers of the case be laid before Honble the Acting Chief Justice within 48 hours for nominating a Bench in which Honble S. K. Mukherji. J. is not a member. Again the Honble Chief Justice had to nominate a Bench presided over by Honble Giridhar Malviya, J. The Bench presided over by the Hanble Giridhar Malviya, J. heard the petitioners case on 31/3/1994, 18/4/1994, 19/4/1994, 22/4/1994, 27/4/1994, 22/7/1994 and 23/9/1994. J. is not a member. Again the Honble Chief Justice had to nominate a Bench presided over by Honble Giridhar Malviya, J. The Bench presided over by the Hanble Giridhar Malviya, J. heard the petitioners case on 31/3/1994, 18/4/1994, 19/4/1994, 22/4/1994, 27/4/1994, 22/7/1994 and 23/9/1994. The orders passed therein show that the Bench has been consistently directing to the respondents that the petitioner is not harmed in any manner. A direction was given to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for considering the request of the petitioner for recalling the cases filed against him and to the Special Judge appointed under the Gangsters Act to consider the request of the petitioner for recalling the cases pending against the petitioner triable by the Sessions Judge and the, Judge competent to try the cases under the Gangsters Act. The D. I. G. was directed to provide guard to the petitioner and show cause notice was issued against the respondents as to why despite the orders of the Supreme Court, the security was not provided to the petitioner. In another order, the same Bench showed the concern that despite the orders of the Court, proper counter affidavits are not being filed and an interim mandamus was issued commanding the respondents to give all assistance to the petitioner to restart his newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter from the initial place of its publication at House No. 248/236, Mohalla Generalganj, Kanpur and also to start a Cycle Stand in House No. 49/ 5, Mohalla Generalganj, Kanpur. It was further directed by the said Bench that the petitioner shall not be harmed in any manner and if any harm is done to him the Senior Supdt, of Police and also the D. I. G. shall also be held personally responsible for the same. The Home Secretary, the Director General of Police and the Senior Supdt, of Police, Kanpur City were issued notices to show cause why they should not be punished for Contempt of Court for not complying with the various directions given by the Court. This order was passed on 28/10/1994. Thereafter when the matter was placed on 28/11/1994 before the Bench presided over by Honble Giridhar Malviya, J. the petitioner filed five applications addressed to the Honble Chief Justice as well as to the Judges of the Bench. These applications were placed on record. This order was passed on 28/10/1994. Thereafter when the matter was placed on 28/11/1994 before the Bench presided over by Honble Giridhar Malviya, J. the petitioner filed five applications addressed to the Honble Chief Justice as well as to the Judges of the Bench. These applications were placed on record. The Bench observed that in view of these letters, it would not be proper for the Bench to continue the hearing of the case and the papers be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for nominating some other Bench. The applications filed by the petitioner has used abusive language and has made false and basele8s allegations against the Judges of the Bench as well as the Chief Justice of the High Court by name and also made allegations against the Chief Justice of India and derogatory remarks against the Judiciary of the country. The matter was thereafter placed before the then acting Chief Justice on 19/1/1995. The then Acting Chief Justice nominated, a Bench presided over by Honble S. N. Sahay, J. The matter was placed before the said Bench on 8/2/1995 on which date the petitioner absented himself from the Court. The information was sent to the petitioner to appear in the Court on 3/4/1995. The petitioner was informed of the said order. The petitioner did not turn up and instead informed by a telegram that the petitioner is appearing in Apex Court and prayed therein that the case be adjourned for 15 days. The matter was placed before the Bench on 4-2-1995 on, which date the Court was pleased to fix 10/5/1995. Instead of telling all the aforesaid facts to the Apex Court, the petitioner chose to file a Criminal Misc. Petition No. 82 of 1995. The aforesaid petition came up for orders before the Apex Court on 17/2/1995. The Apex Court mentioned in its order that the order dated 28/11/1994 passed by the Bench of this Court says that because of certain letters written by the petitioner, copies whereof are not on record, the learned Judges constituting the Bench felt that it will not be proper to hear the matter by the Bench. The order further states that the petitioners grievance is that the matter is not being assigned to any other Bench even though it was mentioned before the Honble Chief Justice on 5/12/1994, 9/12/1994, 20/1/1995 arid 23/1/1995. The order further states that the petitioners grievance is that the matter is not being assigned to any other Bench even though it was mentioned before the Honble Chief Justice on 5/12/1994, 9/12/1994, 20/1/1995 arid 23/1/1995. The Court observed that the Chief Justice of the High Court should consider the request of the petitioner sympathetically for nominating some other Bench. The Apex Court was neither informed as to what type of letters the petitioner has filed before the Court nor any positive direction was given by the Court as the letter filed by the petitioner were not before the Apex Court. The aforesaid order of the Apex Court was communicated to the Registrar of this Court by letter dated 22-21995. The petitioner appeared before the Apex Court in person. The petitioner was under a duty to inform, the Apex Court as to what letters, he had filed before several Benches of this Court which compelled the Benches to release the matter. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner made false statements before the Apex Court that despite a mention being made by him, the Honble Chief Justice of this Court has not fixed the matter, as the record reveals that the matter was fixed even before the Criminal Misc. , Writ Petition was moved by the petitioner before the Apex Court. The petitioner wilfully concealed the material and obtained an order from the Apex Court by making baseless and false allegations against the Honble Chief -Justice of this Court. However, since Honble Mr. Justice S. N. Sahaywas not available: the matter was urgently brought to the notice of the Honble Chief Justice on 15-5-1995 who nominated a Bench presided over by one of us (Justice R. B. Mehrotra ). ( 13 ) WE heard the matter on day to day basis continuously from 15-5-1995. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 3rd July, 1995. The petitioner absented himself in the proceedings after lunch on 3rd July, 1995, consequent thereto the matter was posted on 6th of July, 1995 and thereafter it was heard on 7th of July, 19th of July, 19th of August, 11th of September, 16th of October, 1995 and 16th of January, 1996 and 13th of February, 1996 on which date we reserved the judgment. Substance of the grievances raised by the petitioner in the main writ petition and by means of several misc. Substance of the grievances raised by the petitioner in the main writ petition and by means of several misc. applications and various affidavits and supplementary affidavits filed by him during the course of hearing can be summarised as under: 1. The petitioner claimed that since he was publishing a newspaper, namely, Kanpur Crime Reporter wherein he was publishing the matters against the police authorities, out of malice the petitioner has been implicated in false criminal cases with an idea that the petitioner may refrain from publishing the police atrocities and highlighting the false killing of the citizens of the country in the name of encounters. 2. The petitioner has not been provided with the security despite the orders of the Honble Supreme Court and various orders passed by this Court. 3. Despite the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10790 of 1989 Smt. Kesari Devi v. R. B. Pradhan and others, the motor cycle bearing Registration No. UME-7255 has not been handed, over to the petitioner in running condition. 4. The petitioners contention is that he was earning his livelihood by running a Cycle Stand in Kanpur City but the police authorities are illegally preventing the petitioner from running his business out of malice for the reasons already disclosed in point No. 1. 5. The petitioner was not permitted to publish his newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter despite orders of this Court. 6. The petitioner has been deprived of his belongings and cash on being arrested on 3rd of July, 1995. The police authorities have not returned the amount so recovered from the petitioner at the time of his arrest. 7. An attempt was made by the police authorities of the City of Kanpur to kill the petitioner in false encounter. He has sought an enquiry by an independent agency in the said incident. 8. The petitioner has given specific instances of cases where the police has killed various citizens of this country after arresting them by showing such killings in police encounters. 9. A general allegation has been made that under a planned conspiracy, the police of the State of Uttar Pradesh have killed so far twenty thousand people of the State in their custody falsely alleging that these persons have been killed in encounters with the police. 9. A general allegation has been made that under a planned conspiracy, the police of the State of Uttar Pradesh have killed so far twenty thousand people of the State in their custody falsely alleging that these persons have been killed in encounters with the police. On various dates on which the matter was heard, we have dealt with all the grievances of the petitioner except the grievance of the petitioner regarding killing of the large number of people by the police authorities in police custody showing them to have been killed in encounters. However, we summarise the various orders which we have passed from time to time regarding the grievance of the petitioner, 10. First Grievance - Regarding implicating the petitioner in false criminal cases. Initially Sri Jag Mohan Yadav, Senior Supdt. of Police, Kanpur, submitted a list of 37 cases, given details of history sheet in which the petitioner was involved. However, on scrutiny, it was disclosed later on by the affidavit of Sri Pushpak Jyoti, Deputy Supdt, of Police that on the date of filing of the writ petition, 14 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. Later on it was disclosed that 3 more cases were also pending against the petitioner. In all 17 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. To examine the allegation of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in all these cases without there being any material on record and for examining the relief claimed by the petitioner in this connection that all criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner be quashed, we summoned the records of all the 17 cases pending against the petitioner. We closely examined the records of all the cases and we were satisfied from perusal of the records of the cases that it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the cases pending against the petitioner have been fabricated without there being any evidence on record. On considering the aforesaid-aspect of the matter, on 19th July, 1995, we passed an order that in the circumstances of the case it is not possible to issue a direction for quashing proceedings of all 17 cases or any of them pending against the petitioner. However, we directed that the cases pending against the petitioner should be grouped together and should be divided in two groups. However, we directed that the cases pending against the petitioner should be grouped together and should be divided in two groups. All cases pending against the petitioner triable by the 1st Class Magistrate should be transferred to the Court of the Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 1, Kanpur and directed that all such cases should be expeditiously disposed off by the aforesaid Court as far as possible within six months. We also directed that the case which are triable by the Sessions Judge! Addi. Sessions Judge, who has been designated to try the case under the Gangsters Act, should also be grouped and tried by a Sessions Judge, who is competent to hear and decide the case under the Gangsters Act. For this group of cases, a direction for expeditious hearing of the petitioners cases was also given. As per our direction, the cases transferred to the Court of the I Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur are being heard. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents allege that the petitioner is not co-operating. However, the cases which were to be heard by the Sessions Judge competent to hear the cases under the Gangsters Act could not be proceeded with. as there was no Sessions Judge in the Kanpur Division authorised to hear the cases under the Gangsters Act by the Government. On our direction, the Government has come out with a notification appointing Sri V. N. Chaddha, Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur appointing him to hear cases under section 5 (2) of the Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. 1986 (for convenience referred to as Gangsters Act ). We had been monitoring throughout the progress of the case pending against the petitioner. The latest progress report regarding the cases pending against the petitioner has been furnished to us after reserving our judgment in the matter. The report discloses. The report disclosed that as on 21/4/1996, out of 17 cases pending against the petitioner, the petitioner has been acquitted in 9 cases. Out of the 8 cases pending against the petitioner, 4 cases are being tried by the II Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar as per direction given by this Court and the remaining 4 cases are being tried by the Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate I, Kanpur Nagar, details whereof are being given as under: Cases pending before the II Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar:1. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar as per direction given by this Court and the remaining 4 cases are being tried by the Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate I, Kanpur Nagar, details whereof are being given as under: Cases pending before the II Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar:1. Sessions Trial No. 607 of 1992, under section 307 IPC P. S. Badshahi Naka. Date fixed 24/4/1996. 2. Sessions Trial No. 1009 of 1991, under sections 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act P. S. CRP. Date fixed 27/4/1996. 3. Sessions Trial No. 1529 of 1995, under Section 307 IPC P. S. Collectorganj. Date fixed 22/4/1996. 4. Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1991, under section 3 (1) Gangsters Act. Police Station Badshahi N a ka. Date fixed 27/5/1996. Cases Pending in the Court of the Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. 1. Case Crime No. 3578 of 1995, under sections 452/323 504,1506 IPC P. S. Badshahi Naka. Date fixed 0/5/1006. 2. Case Crime No. 2525 of 1995, under section 224 IPC P. S. Kotwali. Date fixed 9/5/1996. 3. Case Crime No. 3580 of 1995, under sections 341/354/386 IPC P. S. Badshahi Naka. Date fixed 9/5/1996. 4. Case Crime No. 3595 of 1995, under section 386 WC P. S. Badshahi Naka. Date fixed 9/5/1996. ( 14 ) IT has also been placed on record by the Addi. Chief Standing Counsel that out of aforesaid 8 cases, the petitioner has been bailed out in all the 8 cases but on being discovered that the sureties furnished by the petitioner in two cases are forged, the petitioner has not been released from the jail custody. Thereafter the petitioner has not furnished fresh bail bonds in Sessions Trial Nos. 1009 of 1991 and 1529 of 1995 consequent thereto, the petitioner continues to be detained in judicial custody in Kanpur Central, Jail. Since we are disposing off the matter finally, it will not be possible for us to further monitor the progress of the cases but we are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has made allegatiuns that he has been implicated falsely out of malice. We direct that the District Judge shall monitor the progress of the case pending against the petitioner and will ensure that all cases of the petitioner are finally decided as far as possible within six months from today. This disposes off the first grievance of the petitioner. We direct that the District Judge shall monitor the progress of the case pending against the petitioner and will ensure that all cases of the petitioner are finally decided as far as possible within six months from today. This disposes off the first grievance of the petitioner. Before, however disposing off this issue, we also want to place on record that as many as 4 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner as far back as 1980 when the petitioner approached the Honble Supreme Court for being provided with security. There is no material placed before us to show that the petitioner was publishing the Kanpur Crime Reporter in the year 1980 nor any material has placed before us to show that the petitioner has ever made any such grievance before the Apex Court except asking for the security. This also supports our view that it is not possible, in the facts of the case, to hold that the petitioner has been implicated in all the criminal cases which at one stage were 37 in number out of malice or without any material. We are clearly of the view that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. The minimum relief which can be given is for the expeditious hearing of those cases pending against the petitioner for which we have taken due care and have given appropriate direction. ( 15 ) SECOND Grievance - Regarding non-providing of security despite order of the Honble Supreme Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had not been provided with security despite the orders of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. The record discloses that on 13-1-1984 while considering the petitioners transfer petition for transferring criminal cases pending against the petitioner to some Court in Delhi on the ground that the petitioner is apprehensive of danger to his life and he is in need of security, the Apex Court directed the State Government to provide him security guard until the four criminal cases are disposed off by the Courts before which they are pending. Immediately thereafter there is another order on record, dated 16/4/1984 passed by the Apex Court while hearing the petitioners Cri. Immediately thereafter there is another order on record, dated 16/4/1984 passed by the Apex Court while hearing the petitioners Cri. Transfer Petition Nos, 99-102 of 1984 stating that the Counsel for the respondent states that he is ready to provide security as directed by this Court but so far petitioner has not asked for security. In case the petitioner wants to attend the Courts in V. P. , he will be provided security as directed by this Court. With the aforesaid observations, the petitioners transfer application was dismissed, The petitioner, however, sent telegram and letter for further direction. The matter was again taken up by the Apex Court on 30/7/1984. The Apex Court made it clear that the order for providing security has already been passed by the court. No further orders need be passed. It was also observed that Court failed to appreciate as to why the petitioner continues to harbour this apprehension. The Court directed that the petitioner can always write to the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur District requesting him to provide security guard at the place suggested by him and if he makes such an application through Jail or otherwise, the same shall be immediately forwarded to the Superintendent of Police. Kanpur who will immediately proceed to provide him security guard as directed. The telegram and letter sent by the petitioner were accordingly disposed off. All these order have been placed on record by the petitioner himself. Another order of the Apex, Court placed by the petitioner on the record is dated 3/12/1993. This order was passed on a writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 490 of 1993. A Division Bench of the Apex Court dismissed the petitioners writ petition as withdrawn making it open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to move the High Court. Apparently this petition was moved when the petitioners matter was pending in this Court and was being persued by this Court itself in its -right perspective. There is another order of the Apex Court placed by the petitioner on record, 1, his order is without date. It was passed in Criminal transfer Petition Nos. 99-102 of 1984. The said order runs thus: An application for further direction and contempt is dismissed. There is another order of the Apex Court placed by the petitioner on record, 1, his order is without date. It was passed in Criminal transfer Petition Nos. 99-102 of 1984. The said order runs thus: An application for further direction and contempt is dismissed. ( 16 ) THIS also shows that during the pendency of the matter in this Court, another attempt was made by the petitioner to obtain an order from the Apex is missed. The petitioner has wilfully suppressed before this Court the applications on which these orders were passed. We have already detailed in the earlier part of this judgment that the petitioner has moved false and baseless applications concealing material facts in the Apex Court while the matter was pending in this Court. This clearly established that the petitioner is only raising a false bogie of not being provided security. In fact the petitioner never needed it nor wanted it. We also bring on record that this Court had during the pendency of this case had throughout been insisting on the respondents that the security of the petitioners person is the responsibility of the respondents and they have to zealously guard his person. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been placed on record which says that whenever the police authorities approached the petitioner at the address given by the petitioner for providing security to the petitioner, the petitioner was not available, as a consequence whereof, the respondents despite their efforts were not able to provide the security as the petitioner himself avoided it. This grievance of the petitioner has been specifically considered by us in our order, dated 16-10-1995. We have held that since the petitioner is in jail custody, the question of providing security to the petitioner has become redundant. The respondents have throughout been contending that, despite the best efforts, the petitioner was not available at the place where he showed his residence as a consequence thereto, the security police authorities could not provide security to the petitioner despite their readiess and willingness to do so. On a consideration of the entire record, we are of the view that the bogie of security has been falsely raised, by the petitioner from time to time. We however, direct the respondents that they will zealously guard the person of the petitioner, whether the petitioner is in jail or outside. On a consideration of the entire record, we are of the view that the bogie of security has been falsely raised, by the petitioner from time to time. We however, direct the respondents that they will zealously guard the person of the petitioner, whether the petitioner is in jail or outside. The Apex Court has already directed the Senior Supdt, of Police. Kanpur to consider the petitioners request whenever such a request is made. In view of the Apex Courts direction already passed, no fresh direction need be issued regarding providing the security to the petitioner. The issue is accordingly disposed off. ( 17 ) THIRD Grievance.- Regarding non-delivery of motor cycle despite the order of this Court. This issue was dealt with in detail by us on 16/10/1995. A detailed order in this connection has already been passed. The defence of the respondents was that the petitioner himself is not accepting the delivery of the motor cycle on the flimsy excuse that the motor cycle is not in the running order. In these circumstances, we directed that the petitioner will accept the delivery of the motor cycle in whatever condition it is that thereafter the petitioner will point out the defects in the motor cycle and the Magistrate, who has to deliver the motor cycle, will get removed the defects and will bring the motor cycle in running condition. On 16-1-1996, the petitioner accepted that the motor cycle has been delivered to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court but the order of this court regarding removal of defects has not been complied with. We considered the petitioners grievance on 16/1/1996 and directed that the 1st Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Kanpur shall fulfil the petitioners grievance in connection with the direction given by us on 16/10/1995. Subsequuent thereto, no grievance in this connection has been brought to our notice. We take it to be granted that the requisite grievance of the petitioner has been met out. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order of the 1st Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who was directed to dispose off the petitioners grievance for compliance of this Courts order, dated 16/10/1995 can pursue his remedy in appropriate proceedings. This matter cannot be permitted to be pursued in the present proceedings any more. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order of the 1st Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who was directed to dispose off the petitioners grievance for compliance of this Courts order, dated 16/10/1995 can pursue his remedy in appropriate proceedings. This matter cannot be permitted to be pursued in the present proceedings any more. ( 18 ) FOURTH Grievance - Regarding depriving of the livelihood by not permitting the Cycle Stand to run. The records of the proceedings show that on 28-10-1994, this Court issued an interim mandamus commanding the respondents to give all assistance to the petitioner to restart his newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter from initial place of its publication viz. House No. 48/236, Mohalla Generalganj, Kanpur and also start his Cycle Stand in House No. 49/5, Generalganj, Kanpur, The petitioner contended that despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioners son is not being permitted to run the aforesaid Cycle Stand. The proceedings of the Court, dated 16-1-1996 records that the petitioner moved an application be fore us that one Deep Narain Malviya, approached the Station Officer, Badshahi Naka, Kanpur Nagar seeking permission to run the Cycle Stand, on 15-1-1996. We directed to the Addi. Chief Standing Counsel to file a reply to the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to run the Cycle Stand and also directed that appropriate orders may be passed on the said application. On the next date i. e. , 13-2-1996, the petitioner refused to participate in the proceedings, consequent thereto the orders were reserved. A counter affidavit has been filed by Pramod Kumar Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station, Badshahi Naka, Kanpur Nagar On 13-2-1996 wherein it has been stated that regarding petitioners grievance for running the Cycle Stand and with regard to the alleged obstruction by the police in the aforesaid regard, a thorough enquiry was made by Sri Umesh Kumar, Circle Officer. Sri Umesh Kumar made a personal inspection of the spot- viz. , premises No. 49/5, Generalganj, Kanpur Nagar and made queries from the local inhabitants. It was reported that one Sri S. K. Chandak is the owner of the premises in question and the keys of the said premises are reported to be with Sri S. K. Chandak. Sri Chandak is reported to be landlord of the said premises. The statement of Sri Chandak was recorded. It was reported that one Sri S. K. Chandak is the owner of the premises in question and the keys of the said premises are reported to be with Sri S. K. Chandak. Sri Chandak is reported to be landlord of the said premises. The statement of Sri Chandak was recorded. Sri Chandak has stated that the tenancy of the premises stood in the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Sri P. L. Maheshwari. Sri P. L. Maheshwari died about 10 years ago and he vacated the house in question. The house is in a dilapidated condition and there is no tenant in the same. Sri Chandak denied that any Cycle Stand was ever run in the aforesaid premises. The Circle Officer also recorded the statement of local residents who disclosed that for last 3-4 years, the cycle stcld is not being run. The enquiry revealed that for 4 or 5 years, the Cycle Stand was not being run. The dispute is in regard to the private property where the landlord is claiming that the tenancy of the petitioner has ceased to exist. Besides that, for running a Cycle Stand, a permission is required by the local authorities, namely, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar. The counter affidavit discloses that no such permission has been obtained by the petitioner. A report was also obtained from the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar which contends that there is no provision in the rules of the Nagar Palik a Adhiniyam for giving permission to run a Cycle Stand in private premises. The report of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar, the statements of the local witnesses, the statement of the landlord of the premises have been filed along with counter affidavit. In view of these disputed facts, it is not possible for us to give any direction to the police authorities to ensure running of the cycle stand by the petitioner in the aforesaid premises. The petitioner may seek his remedy elsewhere. This disputed issue cannot be resolved in the present proceedings. ( 19 ) FIFTH Grievance - Regarding depriving the petitioner from running his newspaper TKanpur Crime Reporter. The petitioner may seek his remedy elsewhere. This disputed issue cannot be resolved in the present proceedings. ( 19 ) FIFTH Grievance - Regarding depriving the petitioner from running his newspaper TKanpur Crime Reporter. The fifth grievance of the petitioner is that despite interim mandamus issued by this Court on 28/10/1994 commanding the respondents to provide all assistance to the petitioner to restart his newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter from initial place of its publication i. e. , House No. 48/236, Mohalla Generalganj, Kanpur Nagar, the petitioner has not been permitted to do so. The aforesaid Pramod Kumar Singh in his counter affidavit brought on record that an enquiry was made from the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as to whether any declaration of newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter has been made before the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in accordance with section 5 of Press and Registration of Books Act (hereinafter referred to as Press Act ). The other query made was to the effect that in case the declaration has been made, as to whether the newspaper was supplied in accordance with the provisions of the Press Act by the petitioner Sri Maheshwari. It was also enquired as to whether Sri Maheshwari has beet} permitted to run the said newspaper. In reply to the aforesaid queries, the District Magistrate on 7/2/1996 has in formed that in the Declaration Register, no such newspaper figures. The report of the District Magistrate has been filed with the counter affidavit. Similarly, on enquiry made from the District Information officer with regard to the aforesaid newspaper, it has been, reported that the aforesaid newspaper is not registered in the office of the District Information Officer nor any such newspaper is registered in the record of the District Information, Officer. The counter affidavit further states that since registration of the aforesaid newspaper could not be ascertained from any of these sources, it could not be ascertained as to from which place the said newspaper is being published. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard was also dealt with by us in our order, dated 16/10/1995. In regard to the aforesaid grievance, a counter affidavit was filed bringing on record that nobody is available at the relevant place to run the newspaper. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard was also dealt with by us in our order, dated 16/10/1995. In regard to the aforesaid grievance, a counter affidavit was filed bringing on record that nobody is available at the relevant place to run the newspaper. On the said date, we directed, that in case any dependent of the petitioner makes a declaration to run the newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter such declaration will be dealt with expeditiously by the concerned authority in accordance with the newspaper in accordance with the Rules prescribed in this connection and order should be passed within a month from the date the petitioner makes declaration for, running his newspaper alongwith a certified copy of the order, to the concerned authority and the respondents will not cause any undue obstruction in running the said newspaper. In accordance with the aforesaid direction, the petitioners grievance in this regard stands disposed off. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order, no grievance in this connection has been raised by the petitioner before us. No copy of the newspaper Kanpur Crime Reporter has been placed before us by the petitioner as to whether at any point of time the declaration as required under the Press Act was made. This disposes off the fifth grievance of the petitioner. Sixth Grievance- Regarding return of cash and belongings to the petitioner on his being arrested on 3/7/1995. This grievance was raised by the petitioner during the course of proceedings on 11/9/1995. We directed that the amount of Rs. 3,000. 00 which has been recovered from the person of the petitioner and which has been deposited at the Police Station Badshahi Naka, Kanpur Nagar should be delivered to the petitioner, within three days from the date of the order in the presence of the Jail Superintendent. Kanpur. In view of the aforesaid order, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The petitioner has not made any complaint regarding non-compliance of the aforesaid order. ( 20 ) SEVENTH Grievance - Regarding an attempt to kill the petitioner in false encounter. In Supplementary Affidavit, dated 29/9/1992, it was stated by the petitioner in paragraph 12 thereof that the present S. S. P. , Sri D. N. Sawal has got fired on the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner kidnapped one Amar Nath Agrawal and his son Navin Agrawal on 4/7/1991. In Supplementary Affidavit, dated 29/9/1992, it was stated by the petitioner in paragraph 12 thereof that the present S. S. P. , Sri D. N. Sawal has got fired on the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner kidnapped one Amar Nath Agrawal and his son Navin Agrawal on 4/7/1991. On 5/7/1991, the petitioner released the son of Amar Nath Agrawal. Navin Agrawal is said to have disclosed this fact to the Senior Supdt. Of Police on 2/8/1991 with the assistance of Central C. I. D. on 9/8/1991 the aforesaid news item was published in the newspaper. On 17/8/1991 S. L Sri R. S. Goel fired at the petitioner by a. 32 bore new pistol in the premises of G. R. P. at the Railway Station. The petitioner was, however, saved. On 19/8/1991, a report was lodged under the order of the Director General of Police at Police station Badshahi Naka whereas the case should have been registered either at G. R. P. police Station or Generalganj Police Station. In the counter affidavit filed by Dr. Girish Bihari, the District General of Police, V. P. , paragraph 3 thereof states that with regard to kidnapping of Sri Navin Agrawal, a Case Crime No. Nil, under sections 365/366 IPC, was registered at Police Station Badshahi Naka and a chargesheet has been submitted in the case and the case is pending trial in the Court of Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, with regard to the firing at the police party by the petitioner during the course of his arrest at Railway Station on 17/8/1991, a Case Crime No. 337/338/9, under sections 307, IPC and 25 Arms Act was registered at Police Station G. R. P. Kanpur Nagar. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in this also. The case is pending trial in the Court of the Addi. District Judge-III, Kanpur Nagar. The extract of the report of the Senior Supdt. of Police, Kanpur Nagar has been filed as Annexure S. C. A.-II on the basis of which the affidavit has been sworn by the Director General of Police. In view of the fact that the trials in regard to the aforesaid incidents are pending in Courts, no comments are required as it is likely to prejudice either the prosecution or the defence case. In view of the fact that the trials in regard to the aforesaid incidents are pending in Courts, no comments are required as it is likely to prejudice either the prosecution or the defence case. Even otherwise there is no material before us on the basis of which we can comment further on the petitioners grievance in this regard. This disposes off the petitioners Seventh Grievance. ( 21 ) EIGHTH Grievance - Specific allegations regarding persons killed in false encounters. Instances: 1. In supplementary affidavit filed on 14/10/1992, the petitioner has made allegation that on 9/4/1992 the police has killed an alleged criminal named Bijan. In paragraph 4 of the aforesaid affidavit, it has been stated that Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, who was also an Editor of a newspaper and who published a news item that Bansa and Arukh have been killed by police in daylight, was got killed by Sri Sukrata Mukherji, Senior Supdt. of Police through his Station Officer. The then Chief Minister Sri Sripati Misra went on the spot and suspended the Station Officer, but so far no report has been submitted about his killing and limits of cruelty achieved all heights when both the brother-in-laws of Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, namely, Devi Prasad and Han Lal were also got killed by the police at Fatehpur since the aforesaid two persons were going to file a case for the help of their brother-in-law in the Supreme Court. In that connection also, no report has been submitted to this date. 2. In second supplementary affidavit filed on 14/2/1992, the petitioner has given further specific illustrations making allegations of killing by showing encounter stating that a person named Nakai was murdered. In that case, the Supreme Court entrusted the enquiry to CBI when the officer of CBI reached Gonda for enquiry, the then S. S. P. Sri Yashpal forced to get CBI officer murdered wherein a Station Officer, named Saroj got killed a Circle Officer of the police and it was reported that the Circle Officer has been killed in encounter by criminals. 3. In the said supplementary counter affidavit, another instance of killing by showing encounter was given with regard to Ram Sanehi Sachan, who was arrested by the police at 2. 00 p. m. despite the fact that his brother gave an application on the same day at 4. 3. In the said supplementary counter affidavit, another instance of killing by showing encounter was given with regard to Ram Sanehi Sachan, who was arrested by the police at 2. 00 p. m. despite the fact that his brother gave an application on the same day at 4. 00 p. m. that his brother has been arrested by the police, the aforesaid Ram Sanehi was killed the same night in police custody and later on it was shown that he was killed in encounter. 4. Another instance given by the petitioner was with regard to Gaya Singh and Gangoo Singh, who were actually killed by the police behind a hotel. However: falsely it was shown that they had been killed in an encounter. 5. Next instance given in the affidavit was in regard to Jagdish Kurmi who was also alleged to have been killed in police encounter whereas the Magistrate has in an enquiry under section 174 Cr. P. C. reported that Jagdish Kurmi had died due to excess use of force. 6. Next it was alleged in the aforesaid affidavit that two young persons were killed by Han Singh. The affidavit further disclosed that one Sri Jag Mohan Sinha, a leader of Allahabad has been killed. 8. 13 persons in Belna, district Banda were killed in false encounters including a 14 years child. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, reference has been made to the killings of Mainpuri and Etah. 9. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit, it has been stated that murder of Mirja Mallah and another Mallah, murder of Sherik and Sheo Balak, murder of Badwakey, murder of Anis Kaliya were also done by the police and an attempt to kill Jaisi Men and Shami Iqbal was also made. 10. In paragraph 15 of the affidavit, it has been stated that a liquor trader of Varanasi has been got killed. The allegation of the petitioner is that these persons have been killed in false encounters and no enquiry has been made or the enquiry has been unreasonably hushed up. On perusing the counter affidavits, we arrived to the conclusion that no satisfactory reply has been given by the respondents in their counter affidavits to the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner. On perusing the counter affidavits, we arrived to the conclusion that no satisfactory reply has been given by the respondents in their counter affidavits to the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner. We accordingly gave a detailed direction on 11-9-1995 to the Director General of Police to file a detailed counter affidavit and also directed that regarding general allegation of killing of twenty thousand people in encounters, a detailed counter affidavit should be filed. We made it clear in the order that ultimate responsibility of informing this Court is of the Director General of Police who will furnish necessary information regarding all encounters in which police claims to have killed the criminals, the magisterial enquiry conducted in these matters and the report submitted by them, should be brought on record. In response to the aforesaid direction, the respondents could not file their affidavits within the time allowed by the Court and a request was made by the respondents Counsel that since a detailed counter affidavit has to be filed regarding all the encounters alleged to have taken place and it will require some time in collecting the details of all the cases, with constraint, we initially granted one months time to file counter affidavit on 11-9-1995 and thereafter on 6-10-1995, we granted two months time for filing counter affidavit. On 16-1- 1996 also, we granted time to the respondents to file necessary counter affidavits in pursuance of our order, dated 119-1995 positively by 14-2-1996. We made it clear that no further time will be granted. We also brought on record that in the counter affidavit filed by Sri V. S. Mathur, a statement has been made that since 1982 to 30-4-1995, as many as 2. 974 persons have been killed in police encounters. A year wise detail of those encounters has also been furnished in the counter affidavit. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we directed that details of all the encounters accepted by Sri V. S. Mathur in his affidavit should be furnished to this Court. 974 persons have been killed in police encounters. A year wise detail of those encounters has also been furnished in the counter affidavit. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we directed that details of all the encounters accepted by Sri V. S. Mathur in his affidavit should be furnished to this Court. In the light of the submission of the respondents that since the details of as many as 3,000 cases were to be collected and brought on record, we granted time to the respondents to bring on record the necessary details of the specific allegations made by the petitioner as well as of the general allegations made by the petitioner regarding policy of the State Government in killing people by showing false encounters. In response to the aforesaid directions, ultimately counter affidavits have been filed by Dr. Girish Bihari, the Director General of Police, Sri S. K. A. Rizvi, the Deputy Inspector General! Asstt. to D. G. P. , U. P. bringing on record the entire details of the encounters and the enquiries made therein and the follow up actions taken in pursuance of the enquiry. Details have also been given where, on enquiry, police personnel have been found guilty and the details have also been given where, on enquiry under section 174 Cr. P. C. , a final report has been submitted. The necessary files showing these details have also been produced before us. So far as the specific cases are concerned, we have individually examined available records with care. Our conclusions in regard to the specific allegations made by the petitioner are as under:Dr. Girish Bihari, Director General of Police, U. P. Lucknow in his affidavit, dated 16-1-1996, has stated regarding instance No. (i) that one Bijjan alias Brijendra was killed in the police encounter and a final report was submitted in the Court in 1982. With regard to Suresh Chandra Gupta alleged to have been killed by Banda police. Girish Bihari, Director General of Police, U. P. Lucknow in his affidavit, dated 16-1-1996, has stated regarding instance No. (i) that one Bijjan alias Brijendra was killed in the police encounter and a final report was submitted in the Court in 1982. With regard to Suresh Chandra Gupta alleged to have been killed by Banda police. Sri Lal Chandra Gupta, the brother of the deceased moved an application before the S. P. , Banda and a Case Crime No. 103 of 1963, under sections 302,1120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Baberu and the case was investigated by C. B. , CID and a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons in which all the accused persons have been convicted under section 302,1120-B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Banda on 27/2/1985. Regarding Instance No. (v) i. e. , killing of Gaya Singh and Gangoo Singh, the aforesaid counter affidavit disclosed that the aforesaid persons have been convicted from the Court of law and no further action is required to be taken in the matter now. Copy of the letter furnishing the aforesaid information has been filed as Annexure S. C. A. 14t Regarding Instance No. (v), it has been stated that no documents are available regarding the matter, as such no comments are possible. Regarding Instance No. (x), it has been stated that on enquiry, it has been revealed that no liquor trader of Varanasi has been killed by the police in Lucknow. For rest of the instances given in the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner, the counter affidavit stated that for want of further details regarding the date and time and place where these persons are alleged to have been killed in encounters, despite best efforts, the police records do not disclose any such killing. It may be stated that at this stage that the petitioner has refused to co-operate with the Court and has even refused to participate in the proceedings on the last date of hearing i. e. , 132-1996. Since no details have been furnished and only the names of the persons are given, it is not possible for the Court to insist on the respondents to bring details of the instances given by the petitioner. Since no details have been furnished and only the names of the persons are given, it is not possible for the Court to insist on the respondents to bring details of the instances given by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are not in a position to hold the respondents guilty of either not disclosing the necessary materials before the Court nor we can hold them responsible for killing all the persons alleged in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. ( 22 ) NINTH Grievance- General allegations that 20,000 citizens have been killed by police showing their false encounter. So far as the general allegations have been made by the petitioner regarding State Police indulging in a policy of false encounters, the records are bulky ones. It is practically not possible to closely scrutinise each and every case of the alleged encounters in almost 3,000 cases admitted by the respondents to have been killed in encounters. Even otherwise, no useful purpose could be achieved by opening up the cases where encounters were alleged to have been admitted between 1982 and 1990 as no evidence is likely, to come forward after such a long time. We have taken care to examine the cases where peoples have been alleged to have been killed in encounters from the year 1991 onwards. However, a detailed counter affidavit with a detailed chart of all the cases since 1982 has been filed by Sri S. K. A. Rizvi, presently posted as D. I. G. / Assistant to D. G. P. , Lucknow. The learned Addi. Chief Standing Counsel Sri Kazmi has also placed before us all the relevant files of the cases regarding which details have been furnished in the counter affidavit. On scrutiny of the chart enclosed with the aforesaid counter affidavit, after 1991, it shows that in as many as 9 cases, the magisterial enquiry has revealed that the allegation of the police that the persons have been killed in encounter, has been found to be false. Accordingly charge sheets have been submitted in those cases in the Court and the cases are pending. Accordingly charge sheets have been submitted in those cases in the Court and the cases are pending. In as many as 21 cases, the magisterial enquiry is pending, in 17 cases enquiry by agency like C. B. , CID is pending under in as many as 105 cases, the magisterial enquiry under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been held to record satisfaction that the persons nave been killed in encounter by the police as reported by the police officers. However, on further scrutiny, it has been revealed that the files of 38 cases containing the enquiry reports of the Magistrate are not available on the record. In as many as 639 cases where the police claimed that persons have been killed in encounter with the police, there is only a report of the Magistrate as contemplated by section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting a seal on the police version, on the inquest report, neither any magisterial enquiry has been held nor any other enquiry by any other agency like C. B. , CID has been thought of necessary. We have checked the files of these 639 cases on random basis where no enquiry under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by any Magistrate. The record does not reveal as to in what manner the dead bodies of the deceased persons were disposed off. Though the names of these persons have been disclosed but the record does not show whether any intimation of the death of such persons was given to their relatives or whether any of their relatives claimed the dead body. The record does show that before disposing off the dead body, the procedure prescribed in Regulation. 135-A of the U. P. Police Regulations was followed. However, we make it clear that we have not asked for producing any such records and on our query the learned Addi. Chief Standing Counsel has furnished information that procedure has been followed in many cases. 135-A of the U. P. Police Regulations was followed. However, we make it clear that we have not asked for producing any such records and on our query the learned Addi. Chief Standing Counsel has furnished information that procedure has been followed in many cases. Regulation 135-A of the U. P. Police Regulations provides that when a corpse recovered by the police is unclaimed or cannot be identified, the police officer making enquiry under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall arrange to give the fact of discovery the widest possible publicity with a view to identification as also the tracing out of the deceaseds relations, friends or acquaintances to whom it can be made over for disposal. Further procedure thereof has also been provided as to how the publicity is to be made in rural and urban areas etc. etc. The above provision has been incorporated in the U. P. Police Regulations for the guidance of the police officers for ensuring if any death occurs in suspicious circumstances including in an encounter with the police, it is obligatory on the police officer concerned to find out the identity of such person in all possible manners. However, in the facts of the case, we are not in a position to comment further, but we feel necessary to express our view that the above procedural requirement which has been enshrined in the U. P. Police Regulations should invariably be followed for ensuring that in case of death of a person his relatives must know the use of the death so that they may be able to agitate the matter further if they so choose to do so. In the totality of the circumstances we are not satisfied as to why the magisterial enquiry has not been conducted in some cases there as in same set of circumstances, the magisterial enquiry under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been conducted. Human Rights movement is a global phenomenon, Several independent International Organisations like Amnesty International are agitating the issues of killing of the people by State authorities in a clandestine manner by showing false encounters. The allegation is that such persons are killed in police custody but to justify the atrocity of the police, it is falsely alleged that the person has been killed in an encounter by the police. The allegation is that such persons are killed in police custody but to justify the atrocity of the police, it is falsely alleged that the person has been killed in an encounter by the police. Report of Amnesty International qua India is published in March, 1992 by Amensty International Publications. United Kingdom. In regard to our country, it gives details of cases where the police have tortured the victims and have killed the persons in police custody. This Report contains a vivid detail of such cases. The Book is a revealing reading of police atrocities between 1st January, 1985 and 1st November, 10991. Appendix-I of the Book gives a chart and details of the persons killed in police custody. Some extracts of the aforesaid Report are reproduced for making out the point arising in these petitions: Numerous other Indians, notable civil libertarians, have also persistently urged the Government to act to halt police violence against detainees. But successive Indian Governments have failed to do so. They chose not to implement a 1985 proposal by the Law Commission that would facilitate the prosecution of those responsible for killing people in custody. Nor have they acted on the many, often excellent, recommendations made over the years by the National Police Commission such as making judicial inquiries mandatory in all cases of death or grievous injury caused in police custody. The facts presented in this report show this is not the cause. Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes an investigation by a Magistrate obligatory in all cases of death in police custody. Yet, despite extensive research which involved Amnesty International writing to all relevant State Officials to establish what action they had taken to investigate specific allegations of torture resulting in death, the organization has been able to discover no more than 42 magisterial inquiries conducted in a total of 415 cases. It found that judicial inquiries were ordered in 20 cases, With the notable exception of the high quality judicial investigations sometimes ordered by the Andhra Pradesh Government, the full findings of, inquiries are rarely published. Particularly disturbing is the fact that few police officers are ever brought to trial and virtually none are convicted for committing human rights violations. It found that judicial inquiries were ordered in 20 cases, With the notable exception of the high quality judicial investigations sometimes ordered by the Andhra Pradesh Government, the full findings of, inquiries are rarely published. Particularly disturbing is the fact that few police officers are ever brought to trial and virtually none are convicted for committing human rights violations. As far as Amnesty International has been able to establish, police officers were arrested in only 25 cases of death in custody which occurred since 1985 and criminal charges were brought its only 52 cases. In no more than three cases are officers known to have been convicted of murdering people in their custody. As the Statesman commented in August 1989: The main reason why barbarous third degree methods are still used, despite being illegal, is that the police know fully well that they are a protected species and that no harm will come to them if the odd prisoner dies in the lockup. A senior former official commented: in India public demonstrations and loud protests in legislatures have to be organised before police officers are punished for their illegal acts. Very often the only action is transfer, followed by the hushing up of the case by superior police officers". In fact, this report presents extensive evidence that senior police Officers, Executive Magistrates, Doctors and state officials themselves participate in the cover-up of such crimes or shield the police officials responsible from being brought to justice. Commenting on the brutal murder of a farmer in police custody for refusing to pay bribes to a police Constable, the Chief Justice of Indias Supreme Court in 1985 found: Police Officers alone and none else can give evidence regarding the circumstances in which a person in their custody comes to receive injuries. Bound by the ties of brotherhood, they often prefer to remain silent in such situations and when they choose to speak, they put their own gloss upon facts and pervert the truth. ( 23 ) IN Uttrakhand Sangharsh Samiti, Mussoorie v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, a Division Bench of this Court dealing with the problem of human rights held: Until the enactment of the Human Rights Act, 1993, the subject was a matter of international concern when violations occurred within nations. Degrading human life, values and rights affected just and honourable relations between nations. Degrading human life, values and rights affected just and honourable relations between nations. This in turn has been known to be taken as disregard for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of migrated people with one another. Respect for international law and just and honourable relations between nations is an obligation set by the Constitution of India (See Article 51 of the Constitution of India ). But what once was a subject of public international law, is today federal law. Principles of International law and a code of conduct in the affairs of human relations and guaranteeing its value is the nations obligation by law, Could principles of international law in respecting human life and conduct be different in a civilised society? Savagery, carnage, destruction of life and property by aggressors of people who are relegated to vanguished find an answer in international law. Violence, call it war or by any other name, international coventions adjust by reparation. The Constitution of India adopts an international code of conduct. In the light of the development of law on Human Rights and with the enactment of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) providing for constitution of a National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission, the procedure provided under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be interpreted in making it more meaningful for protecting the liberties of not only of the citizens of this country but also of all those who are living in this country as the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been extended by the Apex Court of this country even to aliens. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for information to be furnished to the police anti the power of the police officers to investigate when commission of any crime is reported to it. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for information to be furnished to the police anti the power of the police officers to investigate when commission of any crime is reported to it. Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately-give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests and unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order, the District or Sub- Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood shall make an investigation and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death etc. etc. Subsection (3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides procedure where a woman has died within seven years of her marriage. Sub-clause (iv) thereof provides that if there is any doubt regarding the cause of the death in such cases, the Magistrate is required to forward the dead body to the nearest, Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government. Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when any person dies while in the custody of the police or when a woman is alleged to have committed suicide within seven years of her marriage or the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman, in these circumstances, it is obligatory on the Magistrate to hold a regular inquiry into the cause of the death. In all other cases covered by Section 174, it is only discretionary with the Magistrate to hold such enquiry. In all other cases covered by Section 174, it is only discretionary with the Magistrate to hold such enquiry. The record produced before us does not disclose as to why in certain cases where the persons were killed in the alleged encounter, it was thought of necessary to hold the Magisterial enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and why in large number of cases it was not thought necessary. This requires a pragmatic interpretation of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: In Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. and Others, the Apex Court has extended the principles of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution to a person who has been arrested for some offence and has held that right of arrestee to have some one informed about his arrest and to consult privately with a lawyer is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and it is the duty of the police to ensure that the person arrested is informed that he has a right to inform his relatives and also to consult a private lawyer and it has further been held that thereafter if the arrested person so requires, it will be obligatory on the police to permit the arrested person to consult his layer and also to inform his relatives immediately at the time of his arrest. The extension of these principles which are not incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure show that the Courts are conscious of their obligation of ensuring that no citizen of this country is put to any harassment by the police authorities for want of adequate information regarding his right or his detention may not be done in any clan destine manner. The principles laid down in Joginder Kumars case (supra) can be a guideline for interpreting Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsection (4) of Section 176, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry. However, this provision of information is mandatory only when the Magistrate holds an enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this provision of information is mandatory only when the Magistrate holds an enquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In cases where the Magistrate in its discretion decides not to hold inquiry even such information is not extended to the relatives of the deceased person, as has been disclosed in the records of the cases produced before us. This procedure is liable to be misused by the police authorities. Accordingly, we are of the view that the opening words of Section 176 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, When any person dies while in the custody of the police should be interpreted also to mean that Whenever the police claims to have killed any person in encounter. This interpretation of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will ensure protection of Human Rights in all cases of death where the police claims to have killed the person in encounter and in such cases, the Magistrate will be under an obligation to inform the relatives of such person. This also will safeguard any clandestine effort on the part of the police to kill a person in its custody and then claim that the person has been killed in an encounter: ( 24 ) ON the analysis of the aforesaid, we hold that whenever the police claims to have killed a person in an encounter, an inquiry by a Magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be mandatory. In the background of global Human Rights movement and the issues of Human Rights being raised in United Nations, the Indian Parliament has enacted the Act, namely, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which came into force on 8/1/1994. Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the National Human Rights Commission. The Commission is to consist of a Chairperson, who has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Two Members, out of them, one having been a Judge of the Supreme Court and the other having been the Chief Justice of the High Court and two Members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in mattes relating to Human Rights. Two Members, out of them, one having been a Judge of the Supreme Court and the other having been the Chief Justice of the High Court and two Members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in mattes relating to Human Rights. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Commission shall have the power to inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of violation of Human Rights, etc. etc. Section 14 of the Act provides the power of the Commission to get the complaints investigated and the procedure for such investigation has also been provided. Section 21 of the Act provides for Constitution of the State Human Rights Commission. A State Government has been authorised to constitute the Human Rights Commission, though it is not obligatory. Section 30 of the Act provides for conferring powers on the Courts, to designate certain judicial officers to conduct human rights cases or to constitute Human Rights Courts. In pursuance of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government has constituted the National Human Rights Commission. ( 25 ) IN the set of circumstances narrated in this judgment, it is not feasible nor practicable to pursue these matters in this Court. The petitioner has, on the last date of hearing, stated that he is not participating in the proceedings. Even otherwise his participation was of no assistance to the Court. This Court has no machinery of its own to investigate the alleged violation of Human Rights cases. The petitioner was insisting that an inquiry should be held by an independent agency. The Parliament having enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and National Human Rights Commission having been constituted, a statutory and independent body has been constituted under the Act, which has power to take suo motu actions in appropriate cases. The Act has come into force on 8/1/1994. In the facts of the present case, it will also not be proper for us to request to the National Human Rights Commission to consider a large number of cases for taking suo motu action and particularly the cases where the incident occurred before the constitution of the Commission. The Act has come into force on 8/1/1994. In the facts of the present case, it will also not be proper for us to request to the National Human Rights Commission to consider a large number of cases for taking suo motu action and particularly the cases where the incident occurred before the constitution of the Commission. In this view of the matter, in cases where either the files of the Magisterial inquiry are not available or in cases where no Magistrate inquiry has been held and the incident has occurred after 8/1/1994, we are of view that the files of some of these cases which we have chosen on random basis be placed before the National Human Rights Commission for its consideration as to whether in any case, it proposes to take a suo motu action. A detailed chart of these cases is enclosed as Schedule I to this judgment and the files of these cases will also form part of the record of this judgment. Before departing with the case, we may bring on record that at one stage. Sri Jagmohan Yadav the then S. S. P. , Kanpur filed a counter affidavit which was lateron found incorrect. An apology was tendered by Sri Jagmohan Yadav for the mistake and it was stated that the mistake was committed by him inadvertantly. On looking to the entire circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the mistake was not wilful. No further action is called for in the aforesaid connection. We, however, make it clear that the police officers should be careful in filing affidavits in Courts. ( 26 ) LASTLY, we may also bring on record that the petitioner has indulged in false and baseless allegations which we have referred in the earlier part of the judgment. However, in the circumstances of the case that the petitioner has already been convicted in some criminal cases and also in view of the fact that as many as 8 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the circumstances of the case, any further proceedings of initiating Contempt of Court against the petitioner for his conduct, will only give a handle to the petitioner to misuse the process of the Court by again making baseless and false allegations. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no action need be initiated against the petitioner for committing Contempt of the Court. ( 27 ) WE also put on record our appreciation for the able and fair assistance provided in the case by Sri S. M. A Kazmi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Accordingly, we dispose off the present Writ Petitions with the following directions: 1. The files of the case detailed in Schedule I. of the judgment may be forwarded to the National Human Rights Commission for its consideration and taking suo motu action in the matters, if it proposes to do so. 2. We issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh to hold a magisterial inquiry invariably in all cases where the police claims to have killed a person in an encounter and also to inform the relatives of such person immediately on the occurrence of the death and in cases where the relatives cannot be found out, the procedure prescribed under Regulation 135-A of the U. P. Police Regulations shall be mandatorily followed. We further direct that in all cases where such Magisterial inquiry has been held, the copy of, the inquiry report of the Magistrate shall be forwarded to the National Human Rights Commission till any State Human Rights Commission is not established and after establishment of the State Human Rights Commission in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the copy thereof will be forwarded to the State Human Rights Commission for being informed of such cases. 3. We also recommend the State Government to constitute a State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts as provided in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as early as possible. 4. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar will monitor the criminal cases pending against the petitioner and will ensure their expeditious disposal, as far as possible, within six months from today. The Registrar of this Court is directed to ensure that a copy of this judgment is furnished today. The Registrar of this court is directed to ensure that a copy of this judgment is furnished to- (a) The National Human Rights Commission constituted under the Chairpersonship of Justice Rang Nath Misra, Former Chief Justice of India at its appropriate address to be traced out by the Registry alongwith the records of the police in regard to cases detailed in Schedule II. Records of these cases shall be placed before the Registrar alongwith this judgment. (b) The Secretary, Home Department, Union -of India, New Delhi. (c) The Secretary, Home Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. (d) The District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. A copy of this judgment may be placed on record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37064 of 1992. Copy of this judgment may be furnished free of cost to the Additional Chief Standing Counsel on making formal application and to the petitioner without any formal application for the same, within a week from today. Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall ensure that a copy of this judgment is furnished to the petitioner, who is in jail in the Central Jail, Kanpur, through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kanpur within the prescribed period. Ordered accordingly. ( 28 ) ENVIRONMENTAL Pollution: A Heinous Crime Against Humanity By Sri Prabhat C. Tripathy, LL. M. Crime is generic, largely signifying offences, which are serious in nature and undoubtedly are problems of the society. And sociologically crime is defined as infraction or violation of established or codified custom or public opinion at a given time. 1 In the Indian Penal Code also, the word Toffence is simply defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for the time being in force. So, from definitions of crime, it seems to be a changing concept according to needs of society and invariably moulded by public opinion. Among the existing codified crimes, when measures in the barometer of public opinion, in murder, dacoity, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, abduction and aroson, etc. public reaction is more and widespread as these crimes adversely affect a person or group directly in body, mind, reputation or property. But more heinous crimes like atmospheric pollution, assault on environment and destruction of nature, etc. though are dangerous crimes against humanity, the alaram of crime is very negligible. Because till today, against environmental pollution, public opinion could neither be generated nor geared up to the occasion properly. Hence, in the existing situation, it is obvious that for the pollution crime, public seems to be complacent, because Prabhat C. Tripathy, LL. M. , Research Scholar in Law of Berhampur University. Crime Assistant of DIG (P), SR, Berhampur, district Ganjam, Orissa. ( 29 ) ABUL Hasant, I. P. S Crimes and Criminal Justicet (Calcutta-1939), at P. 129. Hence, in the existing situation, it is obvious that for the pollution crime, public seems to be complacent, because Prabhat C. Tripathy, LL. M. , Research Scholar in Law of Berhampur University. Crime Assistant of DIG (P), SR, Berhampur, district Ganjam, Orissa. ( 29 ) ABUL Hasant, I. P. S Crimes and Criminal Justicet (Calcutta-1939), at P. 129. the effect of environmental pollution or natural destruction criples is neither visible in the face of the crime nor felt immediately though it has dangerous canceric effects on the humanity which gradually leads to a disaster. Aptly, Krishna lyer, J. had commented that today human survival is menaced by another equal homicidal missile euthermistically described as environmental pollution. 2 In contemporary society while people are shocked at a murder incident but they take disasters like illness of thousands of common men, mass blindness or deaths in distress, etc. due to pollution- induced crimes, as casual media news without proper response. The Dengu fever tragedy of Delhi, contageous plague threat of Surat, drought situation of Orissa (due to less rain), frequent natural calamities, unprecedented expansion of deserts and abnormal seasonal atmospheric changes, etc. are few glaring examples of effects of pollution and crime of natural destruction. Today, for the work of a handful of polluters, the entire humanity is suffering and people are being deprived of their legitimate right of a clean environment. They are forced to drink polluted water, compelled to breath polluted air, pressed to live amidst abnormal sound and atmospheric pollution. It is unfortunate that polluters have ( 30 ) V. R. Krishna Iyer. J. Environmental Pololution and the Law, Vedpal Law House, Indore, at page-1, forgotten that every man is a product of his own environment and all his social, moral, spiritual and economic wellbeing only depends on his harmony with nature. In the prevailing polluted atmosphere, now even the common man in society has started to predict that in near future destruction of this beautiful civilization is destined to meet its waterloo, but in this changed scenario still no adequate importance for environment protection is given. To protect the nature and to control pollution of environment, neither people are conscious nor governmental measures are successful. They are only making an abortive effort through advertisements to protect the nature and environment as well, which seems to be confined only in the intellectuals deliberations in higher platforms. To protect the nature and to control pollution of environment, neither people are conscious nor governmental measures are successful. They are only making an abortive effort through advertisements to protect the nature and environment as well, which seems to be confined only in the intellectuals deliberations in higher platforms. This article is an attempt to picturise the pollution of environment and destruction of nature as heinous crime against humanity and analyse how its effects are leading us on the road to ruin of the human civilization. The article by projecting environment pollution as crimes, mainly aims to develop public opinion and to draw the attention of government towards the devastating consequence. In the article, few practicable measures in the larger interest of humanity are suggested to prevent and control the environmental pollution. ENYIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, NATURE DESTRUCTION CRIMES AND ITS EFFECT ON HUMANITY: The word crime truly defies a correct definition and Prof. Kenny opines so long as crime continues (as would seem inevitable) to be treated by Government Policy, the nature of crime will elude true definition. 3 So in the light of definitions discussed when an act in violation of law is a crime, it is justified to say that all violations of environment protection laws are also crimes and the violators are undoubtedly criminals. Laws are usually enacted by the government according to the public opinion and by punishing the defaulters, it aims to eradicate the crime. In our country according to Tewari Committees data, there are nearly 500 environment protection laws including 17 State laws to encounter the crime of nature destruction and pollution. Among them, to prevent water pollution, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 197 A, for air pollution, Air (Prevention and Control of Air Pollution) Act, 1981, to protect environment, Environment Protection Act, 1986, to control deforestation, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to protect from sound pollution and discharge of carbon resulting in air pollution, measures fitted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Newly amended till 1994), Silent Valley (Protection and Ecological Balance) Act, 1979 were enacted. Besides these laws, Major Act (Indian Penal Code) under the head of nuisance (sections 277, 278, IPC), Law of Tort, Cr. P. C. (in sections 133,144), the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, Factories Act, 1948, etc. also provide laws for environmental protection. Besides these laws, Major Act (Indian Penal Code) under the head of nuisance (sections 277, 278, IPC), Law of Tort, Cr. P. C. (in sections 133,144), the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, Factories Act, 1948, etc. also provide laws for environmental protection. But the main problem lies on effectiveness of the enforcement and though there are number of legislations, the implementation of these laws is lax. The Supreme Law of the land, i. e. , the Constitution in Articles 47, 48 (A), 5 1 (g), Union List Entry No. 31, and in State List Entry No. 6, clearly speaks of environmental protection and to take health care of citizens because citizens ( 31 ) TURNER, J. W. Cecil: Crime and Criminal Law", Kennys Outline of Criminal Law (Cambridge Press, 1952), P. 4. health is considered fundamental to the national progress. But in the existing polluted atmosphere, the World Health Organisation Report exhibits that about 8o% of sickness and diseases in India are due to lack of pure water and proper sanitation. In a single city Delhi, as Indian Journal of Environmental Protection exhibited, about 1,100 slum clusters, 94,000 industrial units, over 22 lakh vehicles and 4,400 metric tones of municipal solid wastes have thrown the citys environmental health out of gear. 4 It was also visualised by V. R. Krishna lyer. J. that every year 16,000 million tonnes of oxygen are burnt up and that between 21,000 to 24,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are discharged into the atmosphere. United Nations Rio declaration, Stockholm Conference, 1972. U. N. Resolution of 1986, etc. for environmental protection, though have not achieved desired success in motivating the nations, yet are eye-openers and potray the dangerous effects of environmental pollution. In the Earth Summit, the large scale pollution and its adverse effect was first visualised which ultimately aroused the public opinion in support of environmental protection. It was projected in the Earth Summit that: Each year as many as 50,000 species become extinct, upto 17 million hectares of forest, an area roughly the size of Saudi Arabia, disappear. More than 8. 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are dumped into the atmosphere and some 6. 5 million tonnes of refuse finds its way into the worlds seas, chokine; sea-birds and poisoning fish. 5 4. Published in Times of India, Page-3. dt. 16-7-1996. 5. The Earth Summit: An opportunity we cannot afford to miss. More than 8. 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are dumped into the atmosphere and some 6. 5 million tonnes of refuse finds its way into the worlds seas, chokine; sea-birds and poisoning fish. 5 4. Published in Times of India, Page-3. dt. 16-7-1996. 5. The Earth Summit: An opportunity we cannot afford to miss. U. N. Chronicle, June, 1992, Vol. XXIX, PAD. In the global scenariothough there is much talk of environmental protection and few big powers are advertising themselves as saviours of mankind, but they themselves are polluting the environment in large scale. To cite an ex Ample, a big power alone with just 6% of worlds population, as an estimate made in 1970 showed, 142 million tons of smoke emitted per year, 5,00,000 different chemicals (plastic, antibiotics, radionuclides, synthetic, pesticides and detergent), 16 billion kgs. of chemical and industrial wastes. 1. 25 million kgs. of pesticides and 60 million kgs. of fertilisers are everyday drained into various waterways. Due to the effect of environmental pollution, people are suffering and dying from environmentalinduced diseases. Our rich cultural heritage and historical monuments are continuously subjected to erosion and badly affected. All the holy rivers are polluted and in few areas, there is acute, crisis of fresh water. Fertile lands of the, country are gradually becoming barren and climate is changing ultimately against the order of nature. In Bhopal on December 3 and 4 of 1984, the release of highly noxious and dangerous gas from the plant of Union Carbide Company, resulted in loss of lives of many and caused damage to property and person on an extensive scale. 7 After this hair-raising disaster, people residing in industrial towns are now scared of their security and in fact 6. Subhram Rajkhowa: Environmental Protection - Legal Status and Judicial Response", presented in National Seminar of Lingaraj Law College on Environmental Law and Human Rights, held on 22nd and 23rd April. 1994. 7. Prof. Upendra Baxi (Ed.) Mass Disasters and Multinational Liability (The Bhopal Case of 1986 ). public safety, is now in danger in many towns. In 1950, Patanjali Shastri, J. had interpreted public safety as the security of the public of their freedom from danger. 8s0 the control of crimes of accident in factories, public nuisances, pollutions, destructions of nature, etc. Prof. Upendra Baxi (Ed.) Mass Disasters and Multinational Liability (The Bhopal Case of 1986 ). public safety, is now in danger in many towns. In 1950, Patanjali Shastri, J. had interpreted public safety as the security of the public of their freedom from danger. 8s0 the control of crimes of accident in factories, public nuisances, pollutions, destructions of nature, etc. lead to the maintenance of public safety and is quite essential as it also includes everything that affects the air we breath, the water we drink, the surrounding in which we live and all other factors that affect the quality of human life on the earth. As regards sound pollution, the word noiset is defined as Tunwanted soundt and by this sound pollution, the polluters are upsetting the balance of nature and jeopardising human life. The notification under Environment Protection Act, 1986, provides the statutory right of quiet living to urban dwellers. For residential area the said limit is set at 55 decibels for day time 6 a. m. to 9 p. m. and 45 decibels at night, both expressed as equivalent sound level. Mr. Johari, a forensic science expert of Lucknow, had stated that Noise can cause mental disturbances, deafness and a host of other disorders. Constant noise can cause mental tension and instability. It is evident from situations where people work in places like factories, garages, goldsmiths, etc. are subjected to such cerebral disorders. Water pollution today has become a major threat to the very existence of mankind on the earth. The pollution by domestic pollutants, industrial pollut 8 Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594 at 599. ( 32 ) C. K. Johari. Noise: A Rising Menace, Article published in Cri L. J. of 1995 (Nov.) at Page-143. ants, sediments, radio-active pollutants, thermal pollutants, etc. have affected the quality of the water in many rivers. World Health Organisation specified that the raw-water of Hoogly has turned into 4th grade quality of unit water. The city of Kanpur has more than 45 tannaries, textile mills, chemical and pharmaceutical units, which are discharging waste water into Ganga and polluting it. Krishna Iyer, J. in this context has observed that The unconscionable industrialisation, the unpardonable deforestation and the inhuman extermination of living species betray an exploitative brutality and anti-social appetite for profit and pleasure incompatible with humanism and conservationism. Krishna Iyer, J. in this context has observed that The unconscionable industrialisation, the unpardonable deforestation and the inhuman extermination of living species betray an exploitative brutality and anti-social appetite for profit and pleasure incompatible with humanism and conservationism. Today a bath in the "jamuna" and Ganga" is a sin against bodily health, not a salvation for the so polluted and noxious are these holy water now. In Bombay sea water is polluted as millions of litres of sewerage and industrial effluents are being discharged into the water. In Orissa, River Mahanadi, Kathajori are polluted by the effluents of Brajarajnagar Paper Mill and Textile Mill of Chowdwar. Likewise. River Godavari of Andhra Pradesh is polluted by waste waters of paper mills situated on the embankments of the river bed. Today the eco-systems are gradually endangered by daily discharge of oil, sewerage and effluents. The industrial wastes, sewerage and oils from ships cause damage to marine life. Likewise, within the last few decades about half of the forest resources of India which is a gift of nature has been lost. While we need at least 33% of forest reserve for a balanced environment and ecological balance, at present about 5. 4% forest reserve is only available in India. Due to ecological imbalance, the atmosphere is unusually changing and due to less rain, droughts and spread of desert is also continuing in India. It was very rightly observed that the vast use of energy and consumption of pollutant elements are leading man, as a curse which can after natural system of the planet jeopardising mere existence of human civilization. In this situation when polluters by their dangerous crimes threaten the existence of mankind, the crimes are undoubtedly more heinous in nature than any other crime of the world and the perpetrators certainly deserve severe punishment. LACK OF ALARAM IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND NATURE DESTRUCTION CRIMES: In Benthams classification of offences, environmental pollution crime can be placed in the 4th category, i. e. , public offences which produce some common danger to all the member of the State or to an indefinite member of non-assignable, individuals but the peculiarity in the crime is that, it does not appear that anyone is more likely to suffer than any other. So in these crimes, there is less alaram in society. So in these crimes, there is less alaram in society. It is rightly predicted that there is no alaram whatever in those cases in which the only persons exposed to danger are incapable of fear. 12 In this context, Prof. Baxi citing example of Infanticide crime analysed that though homicide is committed on the person of a new-born infant with consent of his 10. Sandeep Sinha: Global Concern for Saving Environment, Sunday Amrit Bazar Patrika, dt. 10-12-1990. 11. Prof. Upendra Baxi, Benthams Theory of Legislation (Ed. 1986) at P. 148. 12. Ibid, T1benthams Legislation Theory, at Page. 162. parents, the alaram of the crime is less, otherwise the alaram would have been almost the same if the sufferer was an adult. In this crime though parents are sustaining loss by destroying their own creation, still they are doing so with plea to escape from future problems. But in the environmental destruction crimes, the perpetrators, either due to illiteracy or intoxication of luxury, are incapable to predict the future consequences and by destroying their own environment are inviting problems. They are not only exposing themselves to future danger but also unmasking the entire humanity to the threats of destruction. In environment protection laws, the punishment factor and the alaram of punishment (a sense of fear for punishment) are absolutely less, because these crimes are mostly committed by two types of people from two different stratas of the society. While one class of poor people from lower strata destroy nature to maintain their livelihood, the other class of rich multimillioneres from higher strata create pollution for their selfish enrichment. While punishment to poor can neither deter from committing the crime as he struggles for his subsistence nor imposition of such less penalties can restrain the rich who are addicted to abundance. 13 Further in the present day world with moral devaluations, the self-interested rich people are now accustomed and can go to any extent for rich dividends even at the stake of threat to humanity. AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -ORIENTED JUDICIAL TREND: The apex Court of India in 1987 held that The slow poisoning by the Bentham explains: Subsistence and abundancet as: Subsistence:- Bare necessities of life; Abundance :- For ample sufficiency or for plenty. polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoilation should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article-21 of Indian Constitution. AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -ORIENTED JUDICIAL TREND: The apex Court of India in 1987 held that The slow poisoning by the Bentham explains: Subsistence and abundancet as: Subsistence:- Bare necessities of life; Abundance :- For ample sufficiency or for plenty. polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoilation should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article-21 of Indian Constitution. In 1988, the Supreme Court received complaints alleging that the operation of lime stone quarries in Himalayan Region of Mussourie resulted in the degradation of the environment affecting ecological balance. The court entertained the writ under Article-32 and held that the activities violated Article-21 of the Constitution15 and ordered closure of quarries as they were upsetting the ecological balance. In another case, to safeguard the life and health of people, tannaries on the embankment of River Ganga were ordered to be closed by the Supreme Court. In this case, the apex Court observed we are conscious that closure of tannaries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people. ( 33 ) THE courts embarking on public health issues, have issued guidelines in many cases and held Hullers, Oil Mills, Bakery Units, factories and the foundaries located in populated urban vicinities should use smokeless fuels or should take precautions to control the air pollutions. 17 In 1989, a clarian call of the apex judiciary was sounded to protect environment not only by the public health department, environmentologists of sociologists, but also by In Damodar Rao v. S. O. , Municipal Corporation, AIR 1987 SC 171. In Dehradun v. State of U. P. . AIR 1988 SC 2187 . In case of Ganga Pollution (Tannaries) Case, AIR 1988 SC 1037 . ( 34 ) IN C. P. Mukti Sonoharsh Samiti v. State, Am 1990 SC 2060; Tarachand v. State, Cri L. J. (Raj), 1981 at pp. 274-75 and M. C, Mehta v. Union. AIR 1987 SC 965 , at p. 974. jurists and law-students, to protect the human race from such ultra-hazardous pursuits. 18 In F. K. Hussain v. Union, the court held right to life is not only a mere animal existence and its attributes are manifold as life itself. The right to sweet water, fresh air and the right to wholesome environment are interpreted to be attributed to the right to life guaranted by Article-21 of the Constitution. 18 In F. K. Hussain v. Union, the court held right to life is not only a mere animal existence and its attributes are manifold as life itself. The right to sweet water, fresh air and the right to wholesome environment are interpreted to be attributed to the right to life guaranted by Article-21 of the Constitution. In Subas Kumar v. State of Bihar, the apex judiciary held: Right to life is a fundamental right under Article-21 and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and for full enjoyment of life. In Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India, it was held that State should not playa passive role when assaults on environment caused by adverse socio-economic policies, pose a threat to the ecology, courts cannot sit with their eyes closed environmental protection is a constitutional mandate It is the commitment of the country wedded to welfare. Further, because India boosts to be rich, with cultural heritage of ancestors, to protect ancient monuments, in the famous T1tajmahal Case a very strong step was taken by S. C, to save the Tajmahal being polluted by fumes and more than 200 factories were closed down. In the case of Shantistar of 1990, Supreme Court declared in a clear tone that a citizen has right for a decent environment in his living area. Above discussed decisions of the highest judiciary of India, clearly visualise that the judiciary in felt necessities of time is quite conscious of its duty to ensure protection of the environment and has developed an environmental protection-oriented judicial trend in India. REASONS FOR FAILURE OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND LAWS TO CONTROL ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION CRIMES: The greatest economist "malthus" commenting on high population growth has observed that In Geometrical proportion population is increasing whereas means of subsistance multiplies in Arithmetical proportion". It is shown that while the birth rate is 33% per thousand and death rate 12. 5% every year, we add 15 million human beings to our population and thus by 2000 A. D. the population is expected to reach nearly one billion. In this exploding population scenario, a dangerous situation can be predicted in near future that the red lights in Traffic Posts now used for traffic control of vehicles may be utilised in future to control human traffic on roads. In this exploding population scenario, a dangerous situation can be predicted in near future that the red lights in Traffic Posts now used for traffic control of vehicles may be utilised in future to control human traffic on roads. So; with the abnormal population growth, it is obvious that to fulfil the necessities of people and due to their day to day interaction with nature, natural resources are destroyed and environment is polluted. All the pollution and nature-destruction crimes are having long-term effect but immediately after pollution or nature destruction, there is no scope to scale or assess the injury effectuated by the crime. Starting from small vehicles to different size factories which release fumes, gases, waste materials, etc. and ( 35 ) SRI S. K. Mukherjees Article published in AIR Journal of 1986 at P. 113. persons destroying the nature, are responsible for atmospheric pollutions. But severity of their crimes and its effect on public health need to be measured and exhibited by some standards. For monitoring quantums of pollution, due to lack of devices and in absence of proper method to exhibit injuries of nature-destruction crimes and its adverse effect on humanity, the defaulters are easily left scot-free from the clutches of prosecutions. Though large number of laws are enacted for environmental protection, still laws have failed to achieve the desired result. In a seminar, at Ahmedabad, these laws were described as teethless enactments and were compared to a cobra seemingly fierce raising its hood and hissing menacingly, but with no venom in its funds. The Pollution Control Boards of the country and environmental protection measures seem to be like confined in an elevated restrum. And due to lack of public awareness and strict implementation, the enactments are failing and the law is unable to fulfil its purpose. Though the judiciary had interpreted that Right to dean environment flows from right to life (Article-21)25. At the same time, the apex Court had also concluded that right to livelihood also flowed from right to life, 26 and in U. N. declaration in Article-I, right to development was recognised as a human right. Recently, a Division Bench of Supreme Court considering the livelihood factors of labourers, ordered the reopening of factories which were previ 24 Published in the Indian Express dt. 10/9/1996. ( 36 ) LAW Society of India-V. Fertilizers and Chemicals, AIR 1994 Kerala-308. Recently, a Division Bench of Supreme Court considering the livelihood factors of labourers, ordered the reopening of factories which were previ 24 Published in the Indian Express dt. 10/9/1996. ( 36 ) LAW Society of India-V. Fertilizers and Chemicals, AIR 1994 Kerala-308. ( 37 ) OLGA Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 . ously closed down to save the environment (Prajatantra dt. 6/12/1996 ). Likewise, while forest conservation law prosecutes people for deforestation, -the Adibasis and Banabasis of jungle are claiming the right to cut forest woods to maintain their livelihood. At this point Dr. Chakrabarti very rightly commented that if we have to measure success of environment protection movement in the background of tribal peoples right to livelihood as human right, then we are to lament in despair that the entire movement is nothing but a fine rhetoric empty of all meaning and worth. In protecting environment, the new developments in judicial precedents also could not show any fruitful result, rather new problems cropped up from these judicial trends. Because through judicial activism when few mills and factories were closed, now the claims of millers, factory owners to do business (guaranteed by Article-19 of the Constitution), claim of local inhabitants for clean environment (right to clean environment flows from right to life guaranteed under Article-21), claim of workers to retain job for their livelihood (flow from right to life guaranteed under Article- 21) and claim of suppliers, purchasers of factory for their good wills and right to trade and commerce, etc. clash with each other resulting in rise of litigations. But when the humanity is affected by the crimes and lives of citizens are threatened. it seems improper to consider corelated, rights of citizens. Because claims of all rights of citizens are subject to existence of their life, So this right is required to be treated with ( 38 ) DR. N. K. Chakrabartys Article: Right to Livelihood and Environmental Protection, published in AIR April, 1996 Journal at Page-76. prime importance and only maintenance of balance with right to livelihood for welfare of the poor people can do a good turn. Pollution in the global scenario is now poised in such a dangerous way that the living creatures of the Universe including human being is heading towards a very insecure future, if it is not controlled at the right earnest. Pollution in the global scenario is now poised in such a dangerous way that the living creatures of the Universe including human being is heading towards a very insecure future, if it is not controlled at the right earnest. At this crucial juncture, big powers of the world instead of compelling countries for CTBT agreement, if persuaded to sign a treaty, for environmental protection and by providing aids to control pollution crimes, would have gained more appreciations, because at this stage only combined efforts with strong action can protect and save the humanity from destruction. In our country all the environment protection laws are required to be brought under one umbrella and deterrent punishment need to be inflicted on criminals responsible for environmentdestructing crimes. But in controlling deforestations of forest and before imposing prohibitions, the government should also consider rehabilitations of Adibasis and Banabasis who are solely depending on forest and forest products. At this crucial juncture to save the situation environment protection force, protection centres like police stations, to tackle and prosecute the criminals and environment protection courts should be brought into existence. World Bank and other big organisations of the world, for infrastructure if the environ mental protection institution should provide aid to progressive countries. The government should instruct the factories, companies and mills, etc. to pay a new LIC Policy premium so that if for their pollution any human being is affected, he can get compensation first, from LIC immediately. Rule should be framed that when NAC or Urban Development Authority approve any plan of a house, etc. there should be sufficient green fencing. Factories and companies before granting licence should show that they have Yfanged devices to control sound, fume and gas. Further, industries who are likely to destroy environment, before issue of licence should show a green fence, small part of garden, etc. to authority to prove it as compensating measure to anticipated destruction by their company. Use of smokeless fuel, prohibition on use of gas or bulb horn, strict enforcement of loudspeaker. Act (section 7 is now cognizable in Orissa) should be enforced properly. The Urban Development Authority, Municipality, NAC and Panchayats on priority basis should consider the cleanliness of environment. Instead of purchase of TVs or colourful lights, etc. Use of smokeless fuel, prohibition on use of gas or bulb horn, strict enforcement of loudspeaker. Act (section 7 is now cognizable in Orissa) should be enforced properly. The Urban Development Authority, Municipality, NAC and Panchayats on priority basis should consider the cleanliness of environment. Instead of purchase of TVs or colourful lights, etc. these organisations should first fix priority to clean the dirty heaps from road and to clear tip the drainage systems of town to maintain the public health. Above all, we need a revolution which can be achieved in society by spreading awareness movement about necessities of environmental protection. Because unless the public come forward to protect their own environment and save humanity, all these measures would prove to be a fiasco and the human civilization will be dragged towards destruction. . .