JUDGMENT : A. HARIPRASAD, J. 1. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C. No. 70 of 2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Trial of the case had commenced on 22.06.2016. From 06.09.2016 onwards, trial was adjourned for the reason that presence of the witnesses 3 to 5 were not procured for tendering evidence, in spite of issuing show cause notice to the 4th respondent (Station House Officer, Central Police Station, Kochi). Deliberate dereliction of duty on the part of the 4th respondent in not executing the bailable warrant issued to CW-3 and summons to CW's 4 and 5 amounted to manifestation of clear disrespect to the directions of the court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. Direct the respondents 2 to 4 to produce CW-3 to 5 in C.C. No. 70/2012 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam on 05.10.2017. 2. To direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam to dispose of C.C. No. 70/2012 at the earliest. 3. Grant such other relief's, which this Honourable Court may deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Suman Chakravarthy. 3. At the outset, I may mention that the grievance of the petitioner no longer subsists now as the witnesses have been examined on account of the interim orders passed by this Court in this proceedings. However, the serious issues revealed through this case remain to be addressed. It is important to notice that such contumacious acts are generally done when a Police officer himself figures in as an accused or a defaulting witness. Needless to observe that lethargy on the part of the Police in procuring the presence of such accused persons and witnesses is an often repeated saga. Unless that is properly dealt with, the criminal justice administration system will come to a grinding halt. I shall examine the ramification and gravity of the problem posed before this Court. 4. I shall start with referring to Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362 , wherein almost all the relevant decisions on the point have been considered by the apex court. Question raised before the court was regarding the delay in grant of bail. 4. I shall start with referring to Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362 , wherein almost all the relevant decisions on the point have been considered by the apex court. Question raised before the court was regarding the delay in grant of bail. The Bench has referred to Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, AIR 1992 SC 1701 , wherein it has been held that speedy trial at all stages is a part of right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed time. Apex court noticed in Noor Mohammed vs. Jethanand and Another, AIR 2013 SC 1217 that timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. 5. Before that in Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2012 SC 642 , it was observed that long delay has the effect of blatant violation of rule of law and it has an adverse impact on access to justice, which is a fundamental right. A Constitution Bench in Anita Kushwaha and Others vs. Pushap Sudan and Others, AIR 2016 SC 3506 had reiterated the above principles. 6. After referring to various decisions, the principles stated in Hussain's case (supra) is as follows: “27. To sum up: (i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that:- (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week. (b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years. (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year. (d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an under-trial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such under-trial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; (e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; (e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. (Emphasis added) (ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest. (iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts. (iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time. (v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal, AIR 2003 SC 739 .” 7. Despite making various pronouncements decrying and denouncing undue delay in the trial of criminal cases, still the undesirable condition prevails. One of the identified problems, which surface in this case too, is the non-availability of witnesses for tendering evidence. In some other cases, non-availability of the accused persons causes inordinate delay in disposal of criminal cases. Through the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) of this Court, I called for a report from the Sessions Courts and the Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State regarding the number of cases pending in the long pending register (L.P.R.) for non-availability of accused persons. The statistics furnished by the Registry reads thus: Consolidated District wise statement showing the number of cases pending in the Long Pending Register for non-availability of accused persons and witnesses in the Sessions Courts and Magistrate Courts as on 01.03.2018. Name of the Principal Sessions Court Number of cases pending in the Long Pending Register for non-availability of accused persons Sessions Courts Magistrate Courts Thiruvananthapuram 589 20906 Kollam 537 14519 Pathanamthitta 99 6685 Kottayam 64 10028 Alappuzha 116 6835 Thodupuzha 146 4848 Ernakulam 130 20271 Thrissur 206 17285 Palakkad 136 6154 Kozhikode 302 12989 Manjeri 156 10430 Kalpetta 48 2609 Thalassery 151 7487 Kasaragod 158 3382 Total 2838 144428 Grand Total 147266 8. Even a casual look at the figures would show the alarming situation prevailing in the State. As on 01.03.2018, 1,47,266 cases are pending in various criminal courts only on the ground of non-availability of the accused persons. Even a casual look at the figures would show the alarming situation prevailing in the State. As on 01.03.2018, 1,47,266 cases are pending in various criminal courts only on the ground of non-availability of the accused persons. Certainly, the situation is extremely grim. Unless remedial measures are taken at the earliest, things will move from worse to worst in no time. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court by invoking powers vested in it, impleaded the State Police Chief as additional 5th respondent. As directed by this Court, the State Police Chief after considering the report submitted by the District Police Chief (Commissioner of Police, Cochin City) submitted a draft circular, which reads as follows: No. U5-192164/2017/PHQ, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram Circular No. 6/2018 Sub:- Criminal Justice - Serving of Summons and Warrants Instructions issued - Reg. Ref:- 1. Circular No. 8/58 dated 19.01.1958. 2. Circular No. 96/68 dated 30.04.1968. 3. Circular No. 39/70 dated 12.03.1970. 4 .Circular No. 131/70 dated 30.09.1970. 5. Circular No. 165/70 dated 23.11.1970. 6. Circular No. 28/84 dated 07.08.1984. 7. Circular No. 37/84 dated 15.10.1984. 8. Circular No. 15/85 dated 19.06.1985. 9. Circular No. 10/86 dated 06.03.1986. 10. Circular No. 15/94 dated 17.06.1994. 11. Circular No. 25/05 dated 25.10.2005. 12. Circular No. 27/09 dated 20.07.2009. 13. Circular No. 21/10 dated 14.04.2010. 14. Circular No. 15/15 dated 01.06.2015. 15. Circular No. 34/15 dated 24.08.2015. 16. Order dated 28.11.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (Crl.) No. 463/17. While considering OP (Crl.) No. 463/2017 on 22.09.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala observed that the trial of many criminal cases are delayed on account of non-service or improper service of summons and non-execution of warrant by the law enforcement agency and the Hon'ble Court has adversely remarked on the ways of execution by the Police. In this regard, several instructions have already been issued from time to time from the Police Head Quarters for the proper and timely service of summons and execution of warrants to the witnesses/accused and to ensure their attendance in court. It has been clearly instructed through various circulars that it shall be the duty of Police officers to serve every summons and warrants and execute all lawful orders issued by competent authority in accordance with legal provisions. It has been clearly instructed through various circulars that it shall be the duty of Police officers to serve every summons and warrants and execute all lawful orders issued by competent authority in accordance with legal provisions. To ensure the prompt service/execution of summons and warrants respectively issued by various courts, the following instructions are also issued for strict compliance: 1. While serving Summons and executing warrants the respective officers will comply with the statutory provision laid down from Sec. 61 to 105 of Cr.P.C. and also comply with the directions in the above mentioned Circulars issued from this office. 2. The process register should be maintained properly in such a way that all the columns of the register should be filled up according to the heading invariably. The reason for the non service of processes should be furnished in the last column of the process register in detail. The details of long pending warrants and steps u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. should be entered in a separate register after mentioning the details in the process register concerned. 3. Instructions regarding test check of summons/warrants have been laid down in the Police Standing Orders, and various circulars. Circular No. 05/2005 mandates that test check of unexecuted summons/warrants as per standing instructions must be done by SHOs and that CIs and Dy SPs must undertake random check. Circular No. 59/72 mandates that 10% of warrants to be test checked by SHOs and 2% by Circle Inspectors. The process has not been very effective. Hence it is directed that, the test check can continue with a revised target of ten (10) warrants every month in respect of SHOs and random inspections by CIs/Dy SPs (with at least ten test checks in a quarter). However, the test checks must be undertaken in respect of unexecuted accused warrants in crime cases (except in summary trial cases). Follow-up action to be initiated against the concerned officers who fail to execute the process in time or for filing incorrect reports or for failure to submit timely reports with regard to process services. 4. The Investigating officers are directed to ensure that the details such as, Cell phone numbers, Pan Card No. Aadhar Card No. etc. of the witnesses and accused are entered in the Case Diary and witness statements. 4. The Investigating officers are directed to ensure that the details such as, Cell phone numbers, Pan Card No. Aadhar Card No. etc. of the witnesses and accused are entered in the Case Diary and witness statements. A model of Proforma details in this regard which is to be incorporated in the case diary is attached herewith. All available information shall be entered in the Proforma by the officers concerned as far as possible. 5. The investigating officer should ascertain the genuineness of the address of the witness/accused mentioned in the charge-sheet before filing the same before the court. If any change in the address is noticed during the time of trial, the investigating officer and Station House Officer should inform the matter to the court concerned to issue summons and warrants in the new address. 6. The detailed postal address of the witnesses and accused with Flat/House Number, Street Name, Residential Association Number, Post office concerned and any other additional particulars located features which may be helpful in locating the house such as landmarks or other identifiable buildings, offices nearby should be elicited and clearly noted in the witnesses statement as well as in the relevant portions of the case diary and charge-sheet. 7. If the accused/witness is Government Servant, their official and permanent address along with the details regarding Permanent Employee Number, Mobile Number, Voter ID card, Aadhaar Card and Email addresses should be cited in the Case Diary as it would help in timely process service. In the case of official witnesses summons may be served through electronic method also under intimation to the Head of their Department. 8. SHOs are directed to serve the summons to witnesses by all methods which are legally sanctioned. In case of summons which couldn't be served in person or to any of the adult male member of his family, the same shall be affixed in the presence of a witness in a conspicuous part of the house where the accused or witnesses resides. The affixed summons will be photographed by the serving officer. 9. Whenever, in any unavoidable circumstances which make it impossible for such services, the summons should be returned to the court prior to the date of hearing with a proper report through the SHO clearly indicating why it could not be served. A copy of it be kept in a folder attached to the process register. 9. Whenever, in any unavoidable circumstances which make it impossible for such services, the summons should be returned to the court prior to the date of hearing with a proper report through the SHO clearly indicating why it could not be served. A copy of it be kept in a folder attached to the process register. In case of warrant the same will be retained and earnest efforts will be taken to execute till recalled by the court. If the case is posted for hearing by the court prior to the execution of such warrant, the up-to-date status shall be intimated to the court without fail by the officer concerned. 10. When a summons is issued by the jurisdictional court and when the same is to be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, in another district, such summons are presently sent to the SHO of the Police Station under its jurisdiction and where the case was registered. This is an effective method as the concerned Police Station would naturally be interested in the prosecution of the case under its jurisdiction. However, a separate monthly statement of process service outside the district jurisdiction to be generated, and the same be monitored by the AC/Dy SP DCRB in each jurisdiction. The purpose of a district level monitoring is to ensure that cross-jurisdictional issues (if any) in service of summons can be resolved easily. 11. The serving of summons/warrants outside the state, may be entrusted to a wing called the Outside State Process Unit (OSPU) under AC or Dy SP, DCRB in each police jurisdiction under the District Police Chief. The wing may have a Sub Inspector, assisted by such policemen as may be deemed appropriate by the District Police Chief depending upon the volume of such service in each district. When a summons of witness/accused who resides outside the state is received by the SHO concerned, the same may be forwarded to the aforesaid wing and the concerned police officer will make endorsements in such summons and deploy police personnel for the purpose of serving summons outside the state and ensure receipt of proper acknowledgement which will be sent back to the SHO concerned for submission to the Hon'ble Court. The status of such execution may be monitored by the DPCs during their crime conferences. 12. The status of such execution may be monitored by the DPCs during their crime conferences. 12. The mechanism for process service abroad has been laid down in MHA Letter No. 25016/14/2007 dated 31st December, 2007 and 11th February, 2009. S.105 Cr.P.C. provides the legal mandate with Letters Rogatory and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties being the mechanism to achieve this. Recently, mechanisms under various multilateral treaties have also been used to execute judicial processes. There would be a separate cell in CBCID called the Foreign Process Liaison Cell (FPLC), which will have the exclusive jurisdiction over such processes. All foreign processes can be sent by Courts directly to the Cell, which would be under a Dy SP level officer. The said cell will liaison with the CBI Interpol wing and MHA, MEA and make necessary arrangements, therefore facilitating the appearance of foreign nationals witness/accused, Indian witness/accused residing abroad, at the concerned trial Court in the state. 13. In every police station, a Prosecution Coordination Wing (PCW) should be formed headed by a Sub Inspector/Grade Sub Inspector under the direct supervision of the SHO. The Prosecution Co-ordination Wing should have four to five police personnel. The Sub Inspector would coordinate all process execution, and also endorse the processes for efficient execution. He will report details of processes in significant cases to the SHO as well as submit monthly statement of processes to the SHO. All personnel undertaking process work in each police station should be part and parcel of the said wing. In addition, the PCW Head will: (a) Supervise the tapals from different courts, movement of MOs, including those to be forwarded to the FSL etc. (b) The court duty and process duty personnel should report to him daily and provide information about the Proceedings in the Courts. (c) Collect the details from the court duty personnel regarding the attendance of the accused/witnesses in the concerned court and convey the same to the SHOs concerned for further steps and entering the details in the Court CDs. (d) Ensure that the processes registers are maintained in the police station and are duly compared every month with the process register/record maintained in the concerned Court in consultation with SHOs. 14. SHOs should ensure that the process police personnel do not continue in the same category for a long period and to change the process police personnel after an interval of six month invariably. 14. SHOs should ensure that the process police personnel do not continue in the same category for a long period and to change the process police personnel after an interval of six month invariably. 15. Routine inspection should be conducted by supervisory officers to verify the process register and ascertain whether the instructions with regard to the service of summons and execution of warrants are properly carried out. Their remarks should be entered in Inspection Remarks/Visiting Remarks Registers as per the directions contained in the PHQ Circular No. 5/2005 and the SHO will be instructed to ensure that the process are duly served in time. 16. Stringent action will be initiated against the officers/officials who do not respond promptly to the summons issued from court of law and appear for tendering evidence. The immediate superior officers shall ensure the presence of such officers before the concerned Court. In the event of an official who has been summoned to appear before a court is not able to attend the court due to extreme emergency, the unit head concerned, after being fully satisfied, will send up a report to the court concerned. If any laxity or negligence is noticed on the part of officers concerned in the timely serving of summons and in the execution of warrants, strict disciplinary action should be initiated against the officers concerned. Sd/- Loknath Behera, IPS, Director General of Police and State Police Chief. Dated: 17.02.2018 10. I notice that most of the issues are identified and tried to be remedied in the circular. But, the draft circular has not made mention of the circular issued by the Home (L) Department of Government of Kerala. The Government circular reads as follows: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA HOME (L) DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR No. 83536/L1/09/Home Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 15.05.2012. Sub:- Home Department - Judicial Establishment - Delay in serving summons - reg. Ref: 1. Lr. No. D1(B)-88573/09 dated 14.6.2010 and 2.11.2011 of the Registrar of the High Court (Subordinate Judiciary). 2. Lr. No. 1911/E/08/DGP dated 11.8.2008 from the Director General of Prosecution, Kerala. On the basis of an observation made by the Hon'ble High Court expressing its displeasure on the delay in serving summons on the parties concerned, the following instructions are issued for strict compliance: 1. This service of two Policemen deputed from Police Station for serving process shall be spared exclusively for serving of summons on the parties concerned. On the basis of an observation made by the Hon'ble High Court expressing its displeasure on the delay in serving summons on the parties concerned, the following instructions are issued for strict compliance: 1. This service of two Policemen deputed from Police Station for serving process shall be spared exclusively for serving of summons on the parties concerned. These Policemen must not be deputed for attending other emergency duties. 2. The practice of returning the summons with menial scribblings shall be avoided. In order to reduce the instances of returning the summons un-served, the Policemen supervising the service of summons shall be present before the court to explain the reasons for the absence of the summonee before the court. 3. The Police personnel deputed for service of summons shall not take away the right of the courts to issue process/warrant to be executed through Police Stations. 4. Parties filing process/summons may be directed to produce prepared summons, to make it easy for the concerned clerk to dispose of the summons/process easily. Sri. Sajan Peter Principal Secretary Home Department. 11. For the benefit of the Sessions Judges and Magistrates, I shall also refer to various circulars, issued by the High Court, regarding trial of criminal cases. Circular No. 7/85. 7/85 No. D1-25681/85, dated 11th September, 1985, Cochin-682 031. Sub - Warrants and Summons issued from courts - Incorrect/Incomplete addresses etc. - Instructions Issued. The Director General of Police has brought to the notice of the High Court, instances where the addresses given on the summons/warrants issued from the Courts are either written illegibly or incompletely or sometimes incorrectly. These factors are said to be causing considerable difficulties, inconvenience and delay in their service/execution. The High Court, after considering the matter, hereby instructs all the Subordinate Judicial Officers to adhere strictly to the following instructions: (a) Summons/Warrants should be despatched in the time so as to give sufficient time to the field officers to serve/execute the processes. (b) The entries in the Summons/Warrants should be neat and eligible. (c) The name and address in the Summons/Warrants should be clearly written in full. (d) The address and seal of the court issuing summons/warrants should be clearly imprinted on the summons/warrants. (e) The summons/warrants should not be missent and should be despatched to the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police of the District, so as to avoid delay in their service/execution. Circular No. 2/88. (d) The address and seal of the court issuing summons/warrants should be clearly imprinted on the summons/warrants. (e) The summons/warrants should not be missent and should be despatched to the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police of the District, so as to avoid delay in their service/execution. Circular No. 2/88. 2/88 D1-29762/87, dated 14th March, 1988. Sub - Witness Summons - Serious irregularities in the issue of summons - Instructions issued. It has been brought to the notice of the High Court, during the hearing of Criminal M.C. 612/86 that there are serious irregularities in the issue of Summons in trial courts. Summons was not sent to all the witnesses to whom Summons was ordered and there were no entries in the Court records regarding issue of Summons. After considering the matter, High Court feels it necessary to draw the attention of the Trial Magistrates to the guidelines laid down in the following decisions: 1. Under section 540 of the old Code (See 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the Court has unrestricted powers of summoning a witness and it is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of the Court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers necessary for doing justice. When parties do not produce evidence, it is the duty of the Court in the interests of justice to Summon such of the witnesses whose evidence is necessary for a just decision of the case. State vs. Aboobacker, 1960 KLT 1142 . 2. Trial Magistrates' refusal to entertain further evidence in the case will amount to an overlooking of some evidence in the case attracting interference under section 439 of the Old Code (Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. 1973). It is necessary for the Magistrate to examine the witnesses who are to be produced by the prosecution and after hearing the evidence, he may dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law. Sadasivan vs. Rajagopalan, 1970 KLT 399 . 3. There may be cases where summons is not served or in spite of service of summons the witness may not attend the Court. When the circumstances require and in appropriate cases, the Criminal Court may have to pursue the matter and take coercive steps by issuing warrant of arrest. Sadasivan vs. Rajagopalan, 1970 KLT 399 . 3. There may be cases where summons is not served or in spite of service of summons the witness may not attend the Court. When the circumstances require and in appropriate cases, the Criminal Court may have to pursue the matter and take coercive steps by issuing warrant of arrest. In the Criminal Judicial Process, the prosecution must be enabled to produce all the necessary evidence before Court so also the defence. State of Kerala vs. Abdulla, 1984 KLT 452 . 4. In a Summons trial, the Magistrate is not having the option to close the prosecution evidence unilaterally against the desire of the prosecution without examining all the prosecution witnesses on the ground that no useful purpose is going to be served or otherwise. The Court is bound in such cases to assist the prosecution in procuring the witnesses it wants to examine and examine them. Balakrishna Panicker vs. Thevan, 1987 (1) KLT 628 . The trial Magistrates are requested to adhere strictly to the above observations and any lapse in this regard will be viewed seriously. Circular No. 1/1991. 1/1991 No. D1-34884/84, dated 21st January, 1991, Kochi-682 031 Sub - Service of process in criminal cases - Modification of the present arrangements - Instructions. It has come to the notice of the High Court that the main reasons for the delay and ineffective service of processes and execution of warrants are: 1. Late despatch of papers by courts to concerned police stations. 2. Lack of sufficient time for execution being granted by Courts. The High Court having considered the matter in detail in consultation with the Director General of Police hereby directs the Subordinate Judicial Officers to adhere to the following instructions to enable speedy and effective execution of warrants etc. The Police Officers need not return the warrants to the courts on the ground that there is no sufficient time for execution. The police officers may send a report to the court concerned stating the fact and the court may extend the time for execution of the warrant. The extension of time will be intimated to the police officer and in the light of the existing warrant and the subsequent order extending the time, arrest can be effected. 12. I shall now refer to certain provisions in the earlier and present law relating to Police force. The extension of time will be intimated to the police officer and in the light of the existing warrant and the subsequent order extending the time, arrest can be effected. 12. I shall now refer to certain provisions in the earlier and present law relating to Police force. The Kerala Police Act, 1960 came into force on 15.02.1961. Section 29 of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 enumerated the duties of Police officers. As per Section 29(a), every Police officer was enjoined with a duty to promptly serve every summons, obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority. It goes without saying that the competent authority referred to therein was also enjoined by orders of the criminal courts to serve summons and execute arrest warrants. 13. The above Police Act was repealed by the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (in short the Act of 2011) which came into force on 31.01.2011. Chapter V of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 deals with the duties and responsibilities of a Police officer. Section 27 of the Act of 2011 says that it shall be the duty of every Police officer to undertake all reasonable and lawful activities for the efficient and effective discharge of police duties specified under the Act in respect of the discharge of duties entrusted with him. There cannot be any doubt that it is the basic duty of a Police officer, governed by the Kerala Police Act, 2011, to conduct investigation in a criminal case properly, fairly and lawfully and to see that the case is taken to its logical end. For achieving this goal, the Police officer concerned is duty bound to serve promptly summons on the accused/witnesses and to execute the arrest warrants issued from competent courts. 14. Chapter VIII of the Act of 2011 speaks about offences and punishments. Section 113 reads as follows: “113. Protection of action taken in good faith:- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government or any Police Officer or any public servant duly appointed or authorised under this Act for anything done or intended to be done in good faith in the due discharge of official duties under the provisions of this Act. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act and alleged against Police Officer except with the prior permission of the Government.” 15. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act and alleged against Police Officer except with the prior permission of the Government.” 15. An erring Police officer cannot take shelter under the under above provision to shield himself from prosecution, if he blatantly violates orders of the court or acts in utter disregard to the directions issued. If a Police officer fails to perform his duty in properly prosecuting a criminal case, certainly he should be taken to task, not only under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 but also under the provisions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Chapter X relating to “of contempt's of the lawful authority of public servants” of the I.P.C deals with various provisions to meet such an eventuality, like Section 174 and Section 187. Of course, the list is not exhaustive. A Magistrate or a Sessions Judge may initiate prosecution by filing a complaint as required in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case. Such disobedience on the part of a Police officer may even amount to a civil or criminal contempt, depending on the facts of the case, as defined under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 16. This Court places on record the appreciation for the positive approach and the prompt efforts taken by the State Police Chief to alleviate the problems causing delay in disposal of criminal cases. The State Police Chief (5th respondent) shall consider the above mentioned aspects too and issue a comprehensive circular directing all the Police officers in the State to meticulously follow the directions therein. Adequate machinery shall also be put in place for appropriately monitoring the working and dealing with Police officers who violate the directions in the circular. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) shall send a copy of this judgment to all the Principal Sessions Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates for compliance and also for enabling them to percolate it to all the Judicial Officers under their control. A copy shall also be sent to the Director, Kerala Judicial Academy, for information and for making the trainee officers aware of the need to tackle the issue. 17. A copy shall also be sent to the Director, Kerala Judicial Academy, for information and for making the trainee officers aware of the need to tackle the issue. 17. Before parting with this case, I may mention that as directed in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3393 , it has become necessary to maintain a register in each criminal court showing the details of warrant issued. In paragraph 23 of the judgment, certain guidelines are issued. On a perusal of the Criminal Rules of Practice now prevalent in the State, I find no prescription at present to keep such a register. Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) shall after taking orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice place the matter before the Rule Committee for considering the implications of the directions in Radhuvansh Dewanch and Bhasin's Case (supra). 18. As stated earlier, since the issue in the original petition has been redressed by examining the witnesses, no relief is granted to the petitioner. However, the above directions shall be meticulously implemented by the Officers/authority concerned. The original petition is disposed of.