Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 901 (MP)

Subodh Kumar Sinha v. State of M. P.

1996-10-11

R.S.GARGZ

body1996
ORDER R. S. Garg, J. 1. In the earlier order dated 18.4.96, it was observed that the trial if does not show reasonable progress then the applicant shall be free to repeat his prayer after 31.7.96. The proceedings recorded by the trial Court after 18.4.96 show the pathetic and deplorable picture as under :- 2. The case was taken up on 26.4.96. Nothing was done and the matter was listed for hearing on question of charge on 6.5.96. On 6.5.96, there was no representation on behalf of the prosecution. Accused Subodh Kumar was not produced under the protest that guard was not available. The matter was adjourned to 17.5.96. On 17.5.96 the counsel for the present applicant commenced his argument and brought to the notice of the trial court that the documents have not been filed with the challan and the matter be heard without the said documents. The learned trial Court abruptly adjourned the case observing that the arguments of each and every accused is to be heard. It also observed that the documents and the property have not been produced before the Court, therefore, the documents and property be produced in the court on 7.6.96. On the-same day, it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that certain documents were sent to the hand-writing expert and the report had not been received. The trial Court observed that the said document etc. be produced at the time of hearing. The hearing was fixed for 7.6.96. But for appearance of the accused the matter was fixed for 31.5.96. I fail to understand that why the interim date was granted if noting was to be done. The instructions of this Court were to be religiously and sincerely observed that in case of under trial prisoners, the case should have been fixed for hearing on the question of charge within 15 days from the date of the first hearing. On 31.5.96, the accused was produced and he was sent back. On 7.6.96 and 14.6.96 the learned presiding officer was on leave, therefore, nothing could done. The matter was adjourned for 22.6.96. It was again adjourned to 5.7.96. On 5.7.96, the present applicant had produced the copy of the order dated 28.6.96 passed by this Court wherein the applicant was granted temporary bail. The learned trial Court recorded that the property and the documents were not produced. The matter was adjourned for 22.6.96. It was again adjourned to 5.7.96. On 5.7.96, the present applicant had produced the copy of the order dated 28.6.96 passed by this Court wherein the applicant was granted temporary bail. The learned trial Court recorded that the property and the documents were not produced. The matter was adjourned to 23.7.96. The accused was released with the directions that he must surrender on or before 29.7.96. 15.7.96 was fixed for appearance of the accused. 3. From the conduct of the prosecution, it is clear that despite repeated opportunities and the directions of the courts, they have neither produced the documents nor the property. Filing of the challan which is incomplete and the documents which are in conduction of the matter and they are deriving a sadistic pleasure by keeping the accused in jail. In my opinion, the prosecution agency must be condemned for this non-action on their part for not producing the material documents and the property in the Court. 4. The present petition was filed on 22.7.96. On 2.8.96 the counsel for the applicant informed this Court that the applicant has already been surrendered in view of the earlier directions given by this Court. On 12.8.96, the counsel for the applicant was directed to file the certified copy of the proceedings of the lower court. The matter was directed to be listed on 23.8.96. The matter could not be listed on 23.8.96 and was listed only on 9.9.96. Counsel for the State prayed for time to requisition and produce the case diary. It was again listed on 27.9.96 as the case diary was not available with the counsel for the State. The matter was to be listed for hearing on 4.10.96. On 4.10.96, the counsel for the State informed that in spite of three wireless messages the concerned officer has not sent the case diary. This Court observed that if the officer concerned does not remain present with the case diary on 11.10.96, a warrant may be issued against him. Probably this order has brought out the concerned officer from his slumber. He is present in the Court. 5. According to Shri Shrivastava, the wireless messages were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Abmikapur and the Station House Officer, Ambikapur on 27.7. 96, 13.8.96 and 13.9.96. Probably this order has brought out the concerned officer from his slumber. He is present in the Court. 5. According to Shri Shrivastava, the wireless messages were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Abmikapur and the Station House Officer, Ambikapur on 27.7. 96, 13.8.96 and 13.9.96. Shri Rajeshwar Singly Station House Officer, Ambikapur, present in Court, informs that he was taken charge of the police station on 19.8.96. He submits that any wireless message received prior to 19.8.96 was not brought to his notice. Regarding the wireless message of 13.9.96, he informs that it was not received by him. Be that as it may, but one thing is sure that despite the wireless messages issued from the office of the Advocate General and the directions given by this Court, the Supdt. of Police and the Station House Officer, Ambikapur were enjoying their hibernation. It is not expected form the Supdt. of Police that after reading the wireless message sent from the Office of the Advocate General conveying the message that diary is needed in this Court, he would throw the message in a waste paper basket as if he has absolutely no concern. It is the duty of the Supdt. of Police to inform the concerned Police Station and the Station House Officer that the diary has been requisitioned by the office of the Advocate General and the same is required to be produced before the High Court. If the Supdt. of Police fails in performing his duty, cannot escape his liability and must be condemned for his inaction and non-action. It pains me in writing that the Supdt. of Police and the Station House Officer did not perform their duties in accordance with law and instead of doing their duties, they were enjoying ignoring the orders / requisitions. sent by the office of the Advocate General. This is high time when the Police Officer must be informed by this Court that the office of the Advocate General is their own representative and the Police authorities must assist the Advocate General and the Govt. Advocates, so that the officers appearing in the High Court are well armed and are in a position to defend the Government cases / prosecution cases properly. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police for holding an enquiry in the conduct of the Supdt. Advocates, so that the officers appearing in the High Court are well armed and are in a position to defend the Government cases / prosecution cases properly. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police for holding an enquiry in the conduct of the Supdt. of Police and the Station House Officer, Ambikapur who was posted there prior to 19.8.96 and subsequent thereto, and must report this Court within three months from today as to why the case diary was not sent to this Court. If the Director General of Police comes to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the officers then proper departmental action should be taken against them. The Director General of Police shall also inform all his sub-ordinates that in case the requisition is sent by the Office of the Advocate General, requesting production of the case diary, then such a requisition is not made by the office of the Advocate General for his benefits but he makes the request so that this Court is properly assisted. Copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police within one week from today. 6. After hearing the parties, and considering the total conduct of the prosecution, it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with two sureties for Rs. 15, 000/- each to the satisfaction of C. J. M., Ambikapur for his appearance before the C. J. M., or before the trial Court or any other Court as directed by the said Court. Office to register separate M. Cr. C. in list it last week of Jan 97. Certified copy to all concerned, as per rules.