Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1369 (JHR)

Jamshed J. Irani v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-04

ANANDA SEN

body2017
ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition arises out of a C2 Case No.2903 of 2001 involving offences under the Factories. The said case arise out of a complaint and is a summons triable case. The case was filed in the year 2001 and cognizance was taken on 15.05.2001. The case is still pending before the Trial Court without there being any order of stay of proceedings of the Trial Court. It was found that after cognizance was taken, a petition labeled to be one under Section 251 was filed for dropping the proceedings. The said petition was filed on 31.11.2001, which was dismissed only on 07.01.2016. During this intervening period, nothing happened in this case. For long 15 years, this petition was kept pending and there was no progress in the case. When the matter was listed on 22.06.2017 before this Court, several discrepancies were found in handling of this case, some of which were recorded in the order dated 22.06.2017. Thus, this Court, on 22.06.2017, directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct an inquiry and submit a report giving details of the persons who were dealing with this case and the laches on their part. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 22.06.2017, the Inquiry Report in a sealed cover has been placed before this Court. Today the sealed cover is opened. 3. I have perused the report. The report suggests a sorry state of affairs. Page No.4 to 6 of the said Inquiry Report gives the details of the Judicial Officers, who have handled this case. Out of 10 Judicial Officers, 04 are found not to be responsible for the laches, but the remaining six officers are found wholly responsible for the laches on their part. 4. After perusing the report, it gives an impression that there is absolute negligence on part of the Judicial Officers, who were handling this case. It appears that they had lost control over their office and subordinate staff. The names of the Bench Clerks are also mentioned in the report, who are responsible for not maintaining the Court Diary and even this case was not found recorded in the Court Diary. It was found that one officer had given 71 unnecessary adjournments in this case, out of those adjournments, 20 dates were not found in the Court Diary. The names of the Bench Clerks are also mentioned in the report, who are responsible for not maintaining the Court Diary and even this case was not found recorded in the Court Diary. It was found that one officer had given 71 unnecessary adjournments in this case, out of those adjournments, 20 dates were not found in the Court Diary. Another Officer had also adjourned the matter for 80 dates and at least, 50 dates were not found in the Court Diary. White ants had eaten away part of the record and order-sheets were found to be unsigned. This prima facie suggests utter negligence on part of the Judicial Officers and the Office Clerks who dealt this case. If the report is perused the details will surface as to how this case has been handled or rather mis-handled. This extent of negligence cannot be tolerated. 5. It is also pertinent to mention that while checking CIS (Case Information System), it was gathered that the information of this case was not found in the CIS as it has been mentioned that “No Record Present”. This means that the case has not been fed in the CIS. A case which is pending for 16 years, should have been reflected in the CIS, but, by not doing so, is some one trying to hide the fact that a Summons Triable Case is pending for 16 years before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. This Court cannot shut its eyes to this type of laches and mishandling of judicial proceedings. Some action is needed to be taken in this case. Since it involves Judicial Officers, Bench Clerks and Office Clerks of the District Court, I am not passing any order in the judicial side. Instead of passing any judicial order, let this matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the administrative side for his perusal with a request to take necessary appropriate action keeping in view the Inquiry Report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court. 7. Let a copy of this order and a copy of the order dated 22.06.2017 along with the Inquiry Report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court be placed immediately before Hon’ble the Chief Justice through the Registrar General of this Court. 8. Learned A.P.P. prays for three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit in this case. 7. Let a copy of this order and a copy of the order dated 22.06.2017 along with the Inquiry Report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court be placed immediately before Hon’ble the Chief Justice through the Registrar General of this Court. 8. Learned A.P.P. prays for three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit in this case. This Court is not inclined to grant three weeks’ time. This matter will be listed again on 18th August, 2017, within that period the State should file their counter affidavit. It is made clear that if no counter affidavit is filed on that date, this case will be disposed of on the materials available on record.