ORDER : 1. This Public Interest Litigation has been registered as such on account of an order passed by this. Court. The Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 8 of 2011 was converted from Criminal Application No. 90 of 2010. 2. On 22nd February, 2011, a Division Bench of this Court before whom the Criminal Application was placed observed that the application received from the jail raises an important issue, namely, delay caused in proceeding with the trial before the Sessions/Special Court on account of non-production of the accused before the concerned court by the prosecution. The petitioners before this Court gave more than fifty names of the accused with respective case numbers and dates on which some of them could not be produced before the trial court and consequently, on more than one occasion, the trial had to be adjourned. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing before the Bench at that time, sought adjournment to take instructions and to file an affidavit disclosing the steps that would be taken for production of the accused expeditiously. Time was granted and it appears that thereafter an affidavit was also filed. We will refer to the affidavits at a later stage, but we want to refer to the further orders of this Court and that would enable us to understand the scope of this litigation. 4. On 30th March, 2011, when the PIL was placed before this Court, the Division Bench, perused the affidavit of the Superintendent of Prison, Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai and on perusal of that affidavit, the Court observed that undertrial prisoners are not being produced in court. The difficulties are expressed in the affidavit-in-reply. The Court observed that it is for the Government to sort out these difficulties. If vehicles and escort are not available, then, the Government will have to make them available. This Court expressed an opinion and then directed the Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions as to what mechanism will be created by the State to ensure that all undertrial prisoners are produced in court on the required date. The PIL was then placed on 13th April, 2011 before the same Bench. This Court observed in the order of 13th April, 2011 that undertrial prisoners lodged in Bombay Central Prison are not produced in the courts on the appointed dates and they have been repeatedly raising this grievance. The PIL was then placed on 13th April, 2011 before the same Bench. This Court observed in the order of 13th April, 2011 that undertrial prisoners lodged in Bombay Central Prison are not produced in the courts on the appointed dates and they have been repeatedly raising this grievance. In some cases, video conferencing facility is available. The Bench was informed that in some prisons, courts are established but there are number of prisoners who are not produced in courts because of unavailability of escorts. No solution was found till that date and, therefore, this Court once again requested the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay and concerned officials of the Home Department to remain present in the Court. The solution was to be found to this vexed and disturbing problem. 5. The Division Bench, on the next occasion, expected the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Inspector General of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police, Naigaon Headquarters, Mumbai, to attend the Court. That is how the PIL was placed on a subsequent date. On the subsequent date, however, the Division Bench perused the records and came to the conclusion that there are several reasons which are assigned for non-production of prisoners. The reasons for non-production or late production, according to the Division Bench presided over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Mohit S. Shah were too familiar i.e. shortage of escort staff. Apart therefrom, this Court found that there is underutilization of video conferencing facilities between the courts and jail departments. Then suggestions were made by judicial officers, prison authorities and police officials at the conference organized by the State Government on 17th July, 2011, and after considering the suggestions, certain points were placed before the Court in the form of a report. The whole emphasis till that date was on how to utilise or how to make optimum use of the video conferencing facility already in place. 6. The PIL then subsequently appeared before several Benches, but on 3rd April, 2012, time was sought to file an affidavit of compliance. However, on 7th August, 2012, a Bench presided over by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde appointed Mr. Niteen Pradhan as amicus curiae in all matters, namely, Criminal PIL 8 of 2011, the connected Criminal Writ Petition No. 202 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 3308 of 2011. However, on 7th August, 2012, a Bench presided over by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde appointed Mr. Niteen Pradhan as amicus curiae in all matters, namely, Criminal PIL 8 of 2011, the connected Criminal Writ Petition No. 202 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 3308 of 2011. The Criminal PIL had an advocate at that time and Mr. Pradhan was appointed as an amicus in Writ Petition No. 202 of 2011. The subject of the PIL was then noted and on that occasion, this Court passed a fairly detailed order. That order reads as under: (1) "Mr. Nitin Pradhan, learned Amicus Curiae shall act as Amicus Curiae in all the concerned matters. (2) The subject of this P.I.L. is inter alia the inadequate provision of staff for producing under trial prisoners before the Court for the purpose of their remand under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Pradhan submits that there are two prisons in Mumbai where the under trial prisoners are mostly lodged, one at Taloja and the other is at Thane. According to Mr. Pradhan, and it is is also not disputed by Ms. Pai, APP that time taken for transportation of the under trial prisoners from prison to the nearest Sessions Court is one and half hours to two hours, depending on traffic. Further due to the large number of cases before the Sessions Court, often a substantial number of under trials have to go without any substantive order of remand in the majority of the cases. This involves the production of the said prisoners again before the same court for remand. Mr. Pradhan points out that though the law requires remand not more than 15 days vide sections 167(2) and 309(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in fact the remand orders are passed for giving the date for production of the under trials after 4 to 6 weeks. This results in large scale irregularity. (3) In the circumstances of the case, three suggestions have been given as a solution on the above problem. (4) Firstly, the under trials shall be produced before the Magistrate or Sessions or Additional Sessions Court nearest to the prison for judicial sanction of remand only and for that purpose the said judicial officer shall be invested with those powers. (3) In the circumstances of the case, three suggestions have been given as a solution on the above problem. (4) Firstly, the under trials shall be produced before the Magistrate or Sessions or Additional Sessions Court nearest to the prison for judicial sanction of remand only and for that purpose the said judicial officer shall be invested with those powers. (5) Secondly, it is suggested that video conferencing be employed extensively for the purpose of obtaining remand since this facility will obviate need of transportation of under trials. (6) Mr. Pradhan, however, points out that if the video conferencing facility is employed in the present circumstances very often an under trial who has a grievance against the jail or other inmate feels intimidated by the presence of the jail staff and does not communicate his difficulties or any threat to the Court since he is in the custody and surrounded by the jail staff at the time of video conferencing. Mr. Pradhan, however, readily agrees that if under trials are produced for video conferencing in a separate area which is not controlled by the jail staff but may be guarded by the jail staff within the jail premises the under trials would be free to express any grievance without any feeling of intimidation from the jail staff. In other words it appears that an under trial would be able to express himself freely and without fear of reprisal from the jail authorities and inmates, if the place from which he is asked to speak to the Magistrate in a video conference is in judicial control. This would involve the construction or use of the existing area for video conferencing in a way that the under trial can express his views to the Court without any fear of reprisal from the jail staff or the other inmate. (7) In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to make a statement about creation of such place for video conferencing within prison premises in Taloja and Thane prisons and within a period of two weeks from today. We further direct the respondents to submit a report of existing facilities for video conferencing for various prisons in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the distance between the said prison and the nearest Sessions/Magistrate Court, within 8 weeks from today. We further direct the respondents to submit a report of existing facilities for video conferencing for various prisons in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the distance between the said prison and the nearest Sessions/Magistrate Court, within 8 weeks from today. The report shall also contain a statement about the different periods within which the under trials are to be produced again for remand on an average. (8) Mr. Pradhan seeks leave to joint the Registrar General, High Court, Bombay as a party. Granted. (9) Issue notice to the newly added respondent, returnable 24/8/2012. (10) Registrar (judicial) shall furnish all the copies to the learned Amicus Curiae" 7. After that order was passed, this Court came to be informed on 8th October, 2012, that an additional report will be filed containing data of circumstances in which though the distance is short, the number of people produced through video conferencing is proportionately large such as at Nagpur, Chandrapur and Aurangabad. The report also contains the method by which first priority will be given to actual production of the accused and the report was to enlist the circumstances in which the State Government will resort to producing the accused through video conferencing. The report was to enumerate the principles which will be followed uniformly throughout the State. The matter was then stood over to 5th November, 2012, on which date this Court speaking through His Lordship, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar perused a communication received from the office of the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, dated 2nd November, 2012 and a chart accompanying the same. The parties sought time to peruse the document after which the matter was adjourned and it was stood over till December, 2012. It was not taken up in December 2012 and was adjourned to 21st January, 2013. On 21st January, 2013, it was reported that the matter will be taken up at the highest level and, therefore, adjournment was sought by the State. That adjournment was also granted and the matter eventually was stood over till 5th March, 2013. On 5th March, 2013, the Department of Information Technology was directed to be involved and to discuss the issue regarding video conferencing. The Advocate General was also to address the Court and it was informed so. 8. That adjournment was also granted and the matter eventually was stood over till 5th March, 2013. On 5th March, 2013, the Department of Information Technology was directed to be involved and to discuss the issue regarding video conferencing. The Advocate General was also to address the Court and it was informed so. 8. These petitions then appeared before different Benches in the year 2013 and affidavits were tendered but the matters were not taken up. The petitions ran their course in the year 2013 until 3rd September, 2013 when this Court was informed that there are certain licences issued for Video Desktop Conference System and after making the budgetary allocations, this system would be put in place. This Court directed that Writ Petition No. 4391 of 2012 be de-linked from the PIL. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition came to be so de-linked. The matter was then taken up for effective hearing only in the year 2014. At that time, the Court was informed that there is a report filed and which is dated 22nd January, 2014. It was taken on record. That report was perused in some details and the Court was informed on 27th February, 2014, that in thirty six jails in the State of Maharashtra, video conferencing facility is made available for establishing contact with jail inmates. Whether the facility was otherwise utilised and on regular basis was then the issue together with their maintenance. All concerned were, therefore, directed to take instructions in that behalf. The Division Bench placed the matter on 6th March, 2014 and after hearing Mr. Pradhan, this Court was apprised of the situation that video conferencing facility is not available in jails situate in Latur, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Districts. In Gondia and Washim, the video conferencing units are not available in courts as well as jails. In Arthur Road jail and Taloja jail trials were conducted through skype. The trials were successful and shortly the jail authorities will be utilising this facility in the State. A communication of that nature was placed before this Court. The issue in respect of difficulties faced in producing undertrial accused before the trial court were discussed. The issue relating to continuous power supply to courts and jails was looked into. The trials were successful and shortly the jail authorities will be utilising this facility in the State. A communication of that nature was placed before this Court. The issue in respect of difficulties faced in producing undertrial accused before the trial court were discussed. The issue relating to continuous power supply to courts and jails was looked into. Then this Court crystallized the issues and they were whether the State would contemplate forming Escort Cell attached to jails so that prisoners are produced before the Court as and when required, the steps taken for establishing video conferencing/video linkage facility in jails and in all the courts of the State of Maharashtra and steps to be taken in respect of making functional the video linkage/skype facilities in jails in Latur, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Districts and providing for the said facility in jails in Gondia and Washim. Thereafter, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited was to take instructions with regard to the issue of uninterrupted power supply for utilisation of this facility. 9. Thereafter, reports and affidavits have been filed and the pleadings were directed to be completed. The matter could not be taken up and on 10th July, 2014, on hearing parties, this Court made the following order: "Pursuant to the direction given by us, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court submitted that the information regarding the names of 192 Courts as sanctioned for Phase-I (Financial Year 2013-14) and 125 Courts for Phase-II (Financial Year 2014-15) i.e. total of 317 Courts where Video-based Desktop V.C. Solution System will be provided for connecting Jails with Courts has been provided to the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police. Since sanction is not yet granted by the State, the process for implementation and installation of this facility at Courts and Jails has not been done. We hope and expect that the State Government will take a quick decision and sanction the demand for connecting Jails with Courts with the Video based Desktop V.C. Solution System. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Government submits that so far as connecting Juvenile Justice Courts with this facility is concerned, the same is being actively considered by the Government of Maharashtra. The learned counsel submits that some time will be required for the Government to take a decision on this issue." 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Government submits that so far as connecting Juvenile Justice Courts with this facility is concerned, the same is being actively considered by the Government of Maharashtra. The learned counsel submits that some time will be required for the Government to take a decision on this issue." 10. The Division Bench was informed that certain Laptops would also be provided and even that issue was addressed together with an issue of connecting Juvenile Justice Courts with video conferencing facility. All these aspects were looked into and affidavits were called for with compliance reports. The reports relating to Juvenile Justice Board and Observation Homes were called for. This Court was informed that there is a difference between a place styled as a Childrens' Home where the Juvenile Justice Board is expected to be established and must meet and there is no question of any delay because the accused are lodged in the very Home of juveniles. 11. It is only when the accused are in Observation Homes and the distance is far off that the video conferencing would be needed. It is in these, circumstances that this Court was informed that the purchase of video conferencing units has been stopped and the Government proposes to purchase 55 Desktops. Out of 315 Desktop Video Conferencing Units, 280 Units are in the process of being installed and the proposal for the purchase of remaining 123 Desktops have been forwarded to the Finance Department, but approval was not granted. To await that, the Division Bench adjourned the matter. The matters came to be adjourned from time-to-time and in order to ensure that there is complete compliance. The year of 2016 saw these matters being placed before different Division Benches and on one occasion, they were placed before a Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh H. Patil. On 30th August, 2016, when the matter was placed, one more issue was raised, namely, the problem of overcrowding of jails in the State of Maharashtra, assignment of Escort Officers/constables for presenting prisoners before the court for various purposes, including remand, attendance during trial etc. and assigned vehicles for the said purpose. Justice Naresh H. Patil. On 30th August, 2016, when the matter was placed, one more issue was raised, namely, the problem of overcrowding of jails in the State of Maharashtra, assignment of Escort Officers/constables for presenting prisoners before the court for various purposes, including remand, attendance during trial etc. and assigned vehicles for the said purpose. Data regarding delay in serving summons, notices to accused and witnesses in criminal cases by police, data regarding delay in conducting trial due to want of service of summons on prosecution witnesses by police, trial in criminal cases being delayed due to want of service of summons in the State of Maharashtra and on this issue the counsel were requested to take instructions. 12. Thus, what initially started as a genuine concern and subject of vital public interest, namely, non production of the accused before criminal courts in time on account of various practical difficulties then encompassed other issues regarding delay in criminal trials and the reasons for the same. 13. We would not like to widen the scope of this litigation any further as what we have noted after hearing particularly Mr. Pradhan amicus curiae, Mr. Nargolkar appearing for the High Court administration as also Mrs. Deshmukh appearing for the State, is that by virtue of several affidavits-placed on record, the concern of this Court with regard to video conferencing facilities being made available is more or less addressed. Now, the matters with the huge compilations on record were placed to ensure that the delay in trials could be avoided by setting up of more jails and by taking up the modern facilities and optimally utilising them. Thus, video conferencing should be made use of wherever necessary. 14. During the course of his arguments, Mr. Pradhan invited our attention to an order passed on 21st September, 2011 in this PIL in which Mr. Pradhan's concern is noted. Mr. Pradhan submits that in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in exercise of discretion of a Judge, if the presence is not dispensed with, the accused shall have to be produced before the court. In every situation video conferencing inquiry with the prisoner by the Court is not permissible. This distinction will have to be borne in mind by the parties, according to Mr. Pradhan. 15. In every situation video conferencing inquiry with the prisoner by the Court is not permissible. This distinction will have to be borne in mind by the parties, according to Mr. Pradhan. 15. The learned APP was to take instructions, particularly whether the concerned Department of the State would consider directing Investigating Officers or officers presently in-charge of the Police Station to attend sessions trial at least when important witnesses are being examined and to monitor whether summons are duly served on material witnesses and they are produced before the court on the given dates. The real concern, therefore, was avoiding delays in trial. Now, the matter before this Court took a different turn and on one occasion or the other, several deficiencies and lack of facilities were highlighted one of which was a non functioning or absence of the Forensic Laboratories. 16. We do not think that we must address this issue for an order passed in this PIL on 14th October, 2016, and affidavits filed in compliance therewith so also the reports would sufficiently take care of this aspect. 17. Thus, on the availability of video conferencing facility, on making available Forensic Laboratories, on production of accused and timely by making suitable arrangements for police escort and establishment of dedicated cells for the same would stand more or less redressed by the affidavits and compliance reports placed on record. We accept each of the statements made in these affidavits as undertakings to this Court. 18. The guidelines were issued by this Court, according to Mr. Pradhan, for video conferencing between judicial authorities and the accused. Mr. Pradhan was to place his views before the Committee which was constituted by this Court. The Court noted that there has been in-depth research done on this topic and once again this Court was informed that 248 courts which do not have video conferencing facility would require the same and there are about 2200 judicial officers to whom the facility was provided except 248 courts. The High Court should inform the Government the reasons why the video conferencing facility could not installed in these 248 courts and all three departments of the State, namely, Law & Judiciary Departs ment, the Home Department and the Finance Department were to take care of these aspects. The High Court should inform the Government the reasons why the video conferencing facility could not installed in these 248 courts and all three departments of the State, namely, Law & Judiciary Departs ment, the Home Department and the Finance Department were to take care of these aspects. This Court's concern was that such facilities ought to be made available in every court and the existing facilities should be upgraded from time-to-time. 19. Then, the Court was apprised of another reason for delay in disposal of the cases and that is that when the accused could not be produced at a stage where their presence is absolutely essential such as recording of evidence/recording of statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or while framing charges or in some cases, for the purpose of cross-examination, oh account of non-availability of escort or enough policemen. We do not think that referring to these issues again and again and the orders in that regard so also the affidavits would serve any fruitful purpose. The video conferencing facilities are in place. It is their operation and functioning which was a matter of concern and expressed in this Court's order passed in the years 2016 and 2017 in these very matters. The Court found on 15th March, 2017, in one of the orders that some progress is made regarding installation of video conferencing units in some courts and jails. The Court was apprised of the fact that some of these units are not working since they were installed five to six years ago. Now, this Court thought that it is it's bounden duty to issue directions to carry out the process of installation and to replace all units which have become non functional. To our mind, these issues can be addressed from time-to-time at appropriate levels and this PIL need not be kept pending for that purpose. The PILs cannot be the remedy to remove all defects in the criminal justice delivery system. The delay in disposal of criminal cases is an issue which has been addressed almost at every level and has now been taken up at the National level. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is apprised of this issue. The PILs cannot be the remedy to remove all defects in the criminal justice delivery system. The delay in disposal of criminal cases is an issue which has been addressed almost at every level and has now been taken up at the National level. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is apprised of this issue. It is, therefore, directing the State Governments through its orders passed from time-to-time to ensure that criminal trials are not delayed on account of lacklustre attitude of the State machinery. The State machinery must gear itself and appoint Prosecutors, the support staff, make the courts already established fully functional and operational and not just construct court buildings, but provide therein the necessary furniture, basic facilities and amenities, including video conferencing. To that end, therefore, this Criminal PIL has served its purpose. We dispose it of together with the connected matters. 20. We find that there were concerns expressed and when this Court was apprised on 7th February, 2018, that in the process of pendency of this PEL the State Government and particularly the police machinery, the functionaries of the Home Department are too happy that their burden has been more or less entirely taken over by the High Court and its administration. It is now the High Court which would monitor and supervise the prison reforms and the required measures to improve the criminal justice delivery system. We do not think that this was ever the intent of this Court when it converted this litigation into a suo moto PIL. The Administration of Justice, Maintenance of Law and Order and Defence of India are sovereign and regal functions. They could not be abdicated, much less outsourced by the State. It is not for this Court to find out why prisoners and particularly the undertrials suffer because they are not produced on the given date and time before the trial courts. The conditions in which they are placed in prisons' and if their personal presence cannot be secured for want of staff or other reasons, whether video conferencing should be in place. If at all there is a video conferencing facility how it shall operate and function without interruption particularly by disconnection of electricity supply abruptly are, therefore, matters, which we impress upon all concerned are not and will never be taken over by this Court. If at all there is a video conferencing facility how it shall operate and function without interruption particularly by disconnection of electricity supply abruptly are, therefore, matters, which we impress upon all concerned are not and will never be taken over by this Court. We cannot be expected to supervise everything in relation to criminal justice delivery system. The court has its hands full. We, therefore, did not by any orders previously made or later on remotely suggested that this Court must be saddled, with the responsibility and added burden, of ensuring through this PIL, that the State provides every assistance possible for early disposal of criminal cases. The State is a vital stakeholder and it must of its own carry out the necessary reforms and modifications required in the system. We leave the matter at that. 21. During the course of arguments on the earlier occasion and even today as well Mr. Pradhan submitted that the orders of this Court and the PIL itself ought not be viewed as dispensing with the attendance of the accused at criminal trials necessarily. Our attention has been invited by Mr. Pradhan to section 167(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He invites our attention to Chapter XXIII titled as "Evidence in Inquiries and Trials" with a sub-heading "Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence" in which appear sections 272 to 283. Mr. Pradhan would submit that if these provisions are read together and harmoniously, they would denote that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader. Even the proviso added by the Amendment Act, 13 of 2013 to section 273 has been highlighted by Mr. Pradhan to submit that the exception can never become a rule. That there is a discretion vesting in the trial court and particularly the Presiding Officer to do away with the personal attendance of the accused is not to be taken as a rule. That is still a matter of discretion which has to be exercised judiciously and, according to Mr. Pradhan, that should pot jeopardize any of the fundamental and legal rights of the accused. 22. The foundation for this argument and submission is that presumption of innocence is a human right. That is still a matter of discretion which has to be exercised judiciously and, according to Mr. Pradhan, that should pot jeopardize any of the fundamental and legal rights of the accused. 22. The foundation for this argument and submission is that presumption of innocence is a human right. There cannot be any violation of human rights and no impression should be given to the trial court and particularly the Presiding Officers of the trial court that this Court has substituted video conferencing with the personal presence of the accused. 23. We do not think that there is any warrant for this presumption. If these provisions are borne in mind, it is evident that by their sheer language, the Court is obliged to ensure that a trial is conducted fairly and in the presence of the accused the evidence is taken. It is very vital for the accused to know and particularly when the depositions of prosecution witnesses are recorded that the details thereof are appreciated either by the accused himself if he is familiar with the language of the court or through his pleader. At the stage of cross-examination of these witnesses, the accused can give timely suggestions or offer his views to the pleader and through him a cross-examination as effective as possible for his defence can be conducted. It would also be necessary to ensure that in all trials before a court of sessions when the evidence of witnesses, as the examination proceeds, to be taken down in writing by the Presiding Judge himself or by his dictation in open court under his direction and superintendence, by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf. How the evidence has to be recorded, what is the procedure to be followed in the event the language of recording of the evidence is not the language of the Court are then matters covered by section 278 and sections 278 and 279 reserve a crucial right of the accused, namely, that whenever evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused and, namely, that whenever evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused and if he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open court in a language understood by him. If he appears by a pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the court and not understood by the pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader in that language. There are remarks which have to be recorded and that is the duty of the Presiding Judge of Magistrate to do so. Therefore, we do not think that any of the orders passed by this Court can ever be read as substituting this mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Constitution of India. If Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law and Article 21 preserves and protects the life and liberty of every person, then, we do not think that there is anything in the orders of this Court which would suggest that the guarantees thereof are surrendered or capable of being surrendered or waived. It is clear from the above provisions that in facts and circumstances peculiar to each case, a view has to be taken. If the discretion is not exercised in a sound and judicious manner, then, that is also capable of being challenged. If the trial is not conducted in accordance with these provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then, that aspect can also be highlighted at an appropriate stage by the accused. 24. We do not think that we must express any firm opinion on this aspect for none of the cases which are highlighted in the judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the nature considered by them are before us. In the absence of any individual cases brought before us for consideration, it would not be proper, much less, safe to express any final opinion. We only leave the matter at that and further clarify that our orders passed today and all previous orders do not in any manner indicate that in the pending trials and individual cases, the aspects highlighted and noted in this Court's orders in this PIL cannot be raised. They would not necessarily stand concluded merely because the orders and directions of this Court ensured better facilities for conducting criminal trials and their expeditious disposal. The endeavour of this Court is to emphasise that there is a vital interest of a silent element which is also involved. It is a very important stakeholder as well. They would not necessarily stand concluded merely because the orders and directions of this Court ensured better facilities for conducting criminal trials and their expeditious disposal. The endeavour of this Court is to emphasise that there is a vital interest of a silent element which is also involved. It is a very important stakeholder as well. That stake or interest is of the common man or the general public. Public interest is not subserved at all when trials are delayed and when the guilty are not brought to book and when crime is against the society it is the society's interests which also have to be protected and a balance has to be struck in that regard. This Court merely attempted to strike that balance. If laws are going to be subverted or trials are going to be delayed on flimsy and false grounds and if accused are to get away from punishment lightly and casually, then, that concern has also to be addressed by the highest Court in the State. It is towards that end that this Court has only been highlighting the issues without expressing any opinion, much less, rendering a decisive and binding judgment. None of the issues, therefore, highlighted by Mr. Pradhan are concluded by previous and final orders in the PIL. 25. We do not think that any further elaboration and clarification is necessary. The PIL and the connected proceedings stands disposed of in the above terms. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Pradhan and we are thankful to him.