Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2547 (ALL)

Sachin v. State of U. P.

2024-12-18

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (J.D.) FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Rampur to conclude the trial of Case No. 50 of 2019 ( Sachin Vs. Inder Singh ), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Tanda, District-Rampur, within a stipulated period. 3. Though, this Court had disposed of the prayer regarding expeditious disposal of the complaint in question vide order dated 27.11.2024, still this case was kept pending for the reason that this court came across many cases, including the present one, wherein despite the issuance of summons, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant and other process against the accused, the presence of the accused could not be ensured for the reason that processes were not executed by the police, despite repeated letters of the concerned Magistrate to the SHO as well as Superintendent of Police. Therefore, this court vide order dated 12.11.2024 directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to appear personally before this court. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 12.11.2024, Director General of Police, U.P., appeared before this court on 27.11.2024 and submitted that he has taken several steps to ensure the timely execution of the process of the court, especially in the matters under the Act, 1881. It was also submitted by the Director General of Police, U.P., Sri Prashant Kumar, that there is negligence on the part of same police personnel in the execution of warrants, but there is also negligence on the part of court staff in dispatching or handing over the process of court to the police. This problem will be easily sorted out when the National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes (in short, 'NSTEP') will start working in criminal court. On being asked that what the problem is in implementing the NSTEP in criminal courts in U.P., then the Director General of Police informed that the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (in short 'CCTNS') is the police portal and part of the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (in short 'ICJS') is having some technical glitch. On being asked that what the problem is in implementing the NSTEP in criminal courts in U.P., then the Director General of Police informed that the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (in short 'CCTNS') is the police portal and part of the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (in short 'ICJS') is having some technical glitch. The National Informatics Centre (in short, 'NIC') is required to maintain that portal, and if the NIC removes the technical glitches, the system will start to work. 5. Therefore, this court vide order dated 27.11.2024, directed the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, as well as the Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P. police to appear personally before this court through video conferencing. Apart from this, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow was also directed to file a personal affidavit mentioning the steps taken by his department for the timely execution of the process of court. 6. In pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2024, Sri Prashant Kumar, Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow has filed his affidavit of compliance mentioning therein that the police department has taken several steps including the issuance of Circulars dated 09.12.2024, 19.01.2024, 10.10.2023, 16.08.2023, 18.01.2021, 04.02.2020, 20.10.2015 and 16.08.2015. It is further mentioned in the compliance affidavit that in Circulars dated 04.02.2020, 18.01.2021, 16.08.2023, 10.10.2023 and 09.12.2024; it is also mentioned that if any police officer is found negligent in the execution of the process of court, then it will attract disciplinary proceeding against him. From Circular dated 09.12.2024, which has been annexed at page no.15 of the compliance affidavit, it is clear that in pursuance of direction of this court, this Circular was issued with specific direction to all the police officials that they have to execute the process of court which includes summons, warrants and notices in priority basis as the Apex Court had already directed in the case of Suo-Motu Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 2/2020, In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for ensuring the expeditious trial of the case under the Act, 1881, Circular dated 09.12.2024 is being quoted as under: 7. It is also mentioned in paragraph no.8 of the aforesaid compliance affidavit that 800 police personnel have been deployed in the Judicial Summons Cell, constituted in every district, to ensure the service of summons/warrant. It is also mentioned in paragraph no.8 of the aforesaid compliance affidavit that 800 police personnel have been deployed in the Judicial Summons Cell, constituted in every district, to ensure the service of summons/warrant. It is the duty of these police officers to execute/serve the summons and warrant. It is further mentioned in paragraph no.9 that if any laxity is found on the part of any police officer in the execution of summons/process of court, then strict action will be taken against that person. Paragraph nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of the compliance affidavit dated 09.12.2024 are being quoted as under: " 6. That with regard to the query no. 2 "The recent guidelines or direction issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for ensuring timely execution for the process of criminal courts" is concerned, it is most humbly submitted that to ensure effective service/pairvi in order to service the warrant/summon and in order to ensure the presence of the witnesses, directions have been given time- to-time vide following circulars:- S. No. Circular Number Dated Subject 1. DG Circular No. 45 / 2024 09.12.2024 Service of summons (process) on priority basis in the cases under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. DG Circular No. 03/ 2024 19.01.2024 For appointment of Nodal officers to ensure service of summon/ warrant/ notice. 3. DG Circular No. 40/2023 10.10.2023 To ensure effective pairvi regarding service of summon/ warrant, directions have been issued to nominate the Nodal officer at level of Superintendent of Police and to fix responsibility at every steps. 4. DG Circular No. 30/2023 16.08.2023 Directions have been issued to ensure service of summon / warrant etc. 5. DG Circular No.03/2021 18.01.2021 Directions have been issued to ensure the presence of witnesses before the learned concerned court on the date(s) fixed. 6. DG Circular No.07/2020 04.02.2020 Directions have been issued to ensure the presence of witnesses before the learned concerned court. 7. DG Circular No.70/2015 20.10.2015 Direction issued for review of service of process and its movement upon the witnesses in order to ensure the presence of the witnesses before the learned concerned court. 8. DG Circular No.65/2015 16.08.2015 Regarding service of process upon the police personnel (who are in service or retired). Copies of the aforesaid circulars dated 09.12.2024, 19.01.2024, 10.10.2023, 16.08.2023, 18.01.2023, 04.02.2020, 20.10.2015, and 16.08.2015 are being collectively enclosed herewith and marked as annexure no. 8. DG Circular No.65/2015 16.08.2015 Regarding service of process upon the police personnel (who are in service or retired). Copies of the aforesaid circulars dated 09.12.2024, 19.01.2024, 10.10.2023, 16.08.2023, 18.01.2023, 04.02.2020, 20.10.2015, and 16.08.2015 are being collectively enclosed herewith and marked as annexure no. 2 to this affidavit. 7. That with regard to the query no. 3 "Whether any direction has been issued for initiating disciplinary proceeding against the responsible police officers, who are negligent in execution of process of criminal courts, is concerned, it is most humbly submitted that for effective service of summon / notice / warrant etc., instructions have been given to take action as per rules against the police personnel, who disobeys the instructions enshrined in abovementioned circulars, as it evident from the circulars dated 04.02.2020, 18.01.2021, 16.08.2023, and 10.10.2023. 8. That it is most humbly submitted that at present, 800 police personnel have been deployed in Judicial Summon Cell, constituted in every Districts (pan state), who ensures the service of the summon / warrant, issued by the learned concerned court for other district. The said police personnel are doing their work under the direction and supervision of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Beside the aforesaid work,no other work is being taken from these police personnel by the police department. 9. That it is most humbly submitted that the deponent assures this Hon'ble Court, that he will ensure that every warrant / summons / process issued by the learned concerned court is executed, as expeditiously as possible, and that it is clear to his sub-ordinate person that no laxity will be acceptable or tolerable in this context, and that strict action will ensue against the any delinquent personnel." 8. In pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2024, Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, as well as Sri Naveen Arora, Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow, were also present before this court through video conferencing on 10.12.2024. On that date, it was found during the hearing that there was serious confusion among all stockholders. In pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2024, Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, as well as Sri Naveen Arora, Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow, were also present before this court through video conferencing on 10.12.2024. On that date, it was found during the hearing that there was serious confusion among all stockholders. Therefore, this court directed the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow as well as CPC, High Court, Allahabad to convene a meeting through video conferencing on 10.12.2024 itself and with a further direction that on the next Date all the above persons will appear before this court through video conferencing, with the conclusion of meeting. 9. Today, Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, Sri Naveen Arora, Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow, Sri Kamesh Shukla, CPC, High Court, Allahabad, as well as Sri Alok Mishra, Senior System Analyst, High Court, Allahabad are present. They informed this Court that technical problems and misunderstandings between all stockholders have been removed. Sri Alok Mishra also informed this Court that the High Court has already obtained permission from NIC, Pune, to view the summons at the ICJS portal through NIC, Delhi. It is further informed by all stockholders that apart from Lucknow and Ghaziabad, District- Shamli has also been included in the pilot project for implementing the NSTEP system and working with ICJS to get the maximum benefit of technology in the criminal justice system. It is also informed that NSTEP system has been working very effectively in Meerut. Therefore, the Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, as well as the Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow, may also consider to include Meerut in its pilot project. 10. It is also assured by Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, that they will positively implement the NSTEP system in these three districts within two weeks, and thereafter, the same will be implemented in a phased manner in the entire State of U.P. for all the criminal courts after giving required training to police officers. 10. It is also assured by Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, that they will positively implement the NSTEP system in these three districts within two weeks, and thereafter, the same will be implemented in a phased manner in the entire State of U.P. for all the criminal courts after giving required training to police officers. It is also informed by Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, that proper training be also given to the Judicial Officers because NIC is not getting good quality data from criminal courts as this is new technology that requires time to train Judicial Officers as well as police officers. 11. Therefore, considering the above suggestion of Sri Shashi Kant Sharma, this court directs the Director of Judicial Training & Research Institute, Lucknow to a organize training program for the Judicial Officers with the help of the High Court’s technical staff and NIC regarding the procedure and implementation of NSTEP in criminal courts as well as the implementation of ICJS. 12. This court also encountered a number of cases in which presiding officers sent summons and warrants to the police officer u/s 78 of Cr.P.C. as well as a summon to accused through ordinary post, which is not proper. 13. This court also came across a myriad of cases arising out of several district judgeships of U.P. where process registers are not being maintained as per the amended Rule 12 of General Rules (Criminal), and for that reason, even if summons or warrant is dispatched or handed over to the concerned person, even then the person concerned who received summons or warrant from the court could not be traced out, and responsibility for non-execution of summons or other process of court could not be fixed. In all such cases police personnel make excuses that they have not received any summons, warrant or other processes of court and trial under the Act, 1881, as well as other criminal trials remained pending for a number of years, waiting for the accused’s presence. 14. In 2018, an amendment was made to Rule 12 of General Rules (Criminal) on 14.08.2018. 14. In 2018, an amendment was made to Rule 12 of General Rules (Criminal) on 14.08.2018. By this amendment, the remark column of the earlier register was removed, and in place thereof, two new columns were inserted: one is for a mode of service of process and, second, the name of police or other officials to whom the process is sent. As of date, the format of the process register as per the Rules 12 of General Rules (Criminal) is as follows: Particulars of cases Date of orders for issue of process Date of dispatch of processes from Court Mode of Service of process Description of processes and of the person/ persons to be served Name of Police or other officials receiving process from Court with initials and date Name of Police or other officials to whom processes sent Name of Thana or district to which process sent Date Fixed for return Actual Date of return Action taken for late receipt of process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15. The new format of the process register prescribed under Rule 12 of the General Rules (Criminal) clearly shows that there is a column for mode of service of process, description of process and the persons to be served, name of the police or other officials receiving the process from the court with initials and date, and name of the police or other officials to whom process is sent. Therefore, if the correct process register is maintained, it can be easily traced to the person to whom the summons, warrant or other process has been handed over or dispatched. 16. This court also came across a number of cases where it was found that the summons/warrant/process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were being sent through ordinary post. However, as per Section-144 of the Act, 1881, the concerned Magistrate may direct summons to be served through speed post or courier service to the accused or witness. However, as per Section 62 Cr.P.C., the summons shall be served by the police officials. Therefore, the basic purpose of Section-144 of the Act, 1881 is to enable the Magistrate to send summons through registered post or courier service apart from adopting the procedure under Section 62 Cr.P.C., so as to expedite the service of summons upon the accused or witness. Therefore, the basic purpose of Section-144 of the Act, 1881 is to enable the Magistrate to send summons through registered post or courier service apart from adopting the procedure under Section 62 Cr.P.C., so as to expedite the service of summons upon the accused or witness. Section 144 of the Act, 1881 as well as Section 62 Cr.P.C. are being quoted as under: “ 144. Mode of service of summons. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and for the purposes of this Chapter, a Magistrate issuing a summons to an accused or a witness may direct a copy of summons to be served at the place where such accused or witness ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, by speed post or by such courier services as are approved by a Court of Session. (2) Where an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the accused or the witness or an endorsement purported to be made by any person authorised by the postal department or the courier services that the accused or the witness refused to take delivery of summons has been received, the Court issuing the summons may declare that the summons has been duly served. 62. Summons how served.- (1) Every summons shall be served by a police officer, or subject to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant. (2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. (3) Every person on whom a summons is so served shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate.” 17. As per Section-72 Cr.P.C., the warrant shall ordinarily be directed to a police officer for execution upon the accused or witness. Section 72 Cr.P.C. is being quoted as under: “72. Warrants to whom directed. — (1) A warrant of arrest shall ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers; but the Court issuing such a warrant may, if its immediate execution is necessary and no police officer is immediately available, direct it to any other person or persons, and such person or persons shall execute the same. Warrants to whom directed. — (1) A warrant of arrest shall ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers; but the Court issuing such a warrant may, if its immediate execution is necessary and no police officer is immediately available, direct it to any other person or persons, and such person or persons shall execute the same. (2) When a warrant is directed to more officers or persons than one, it may be executed by all, or by any one or more of them.” 18. Where the accused or witness has been residing outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate, then the concerned Magistrate can adopt two procedures: he can directly send warrant under Section 78 Cr.P.C. to Executive Officer or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed or he under Section 79 Cr.P.C. can direct the police officer of his jurisdiction to execute the same beyond the local jurisdiction of court. In such cases, the police officer takes endorsement either from the Executive Magistrate or a police officer not below the rank of incharge of police station within whose local jurisdiction the warrant has to be executed. Sections 78 and 79 Cr.P.C. are being quoted as under: “78. Warrant forwarded for execution outside jurisdiction. — (1) When a warrant is to be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, such Court may, instead of directing the warrant to a police officer within its jurisdiction, forward it by post or otherwise to any Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed; and the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall endorse his name thereon, and if practicable, cause it to be executed in the manner hereinbefore provided. (2) The Court issuing a warrant under sub-section (1) shall forward, along with the warrant, the substance of the information against the person to be arrested together with such documents, if any, as may be sufficient to enable the Court acting under Section 81 to decide whether bail should or should not be granted to the person. 79. Warrant directed to police officer for execution outside jurisdiction. 79. Warrant directed to police officer for execution outside jurisdiction. — (1) When a warrant directed to a police officer is to be executed beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it for endorsement either to an Executive Magistrate or to a police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed. (2) Such Magistrate or police officer shall endorse his name thereon and such endorsement shall be sufficient authority to the police officer to whom the warrant is directed to execute the same, and the local police shall, if so required, assist such officer in executing such warrant. (3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by obtaining the endorsement of the Magistrate or police officer within whose local jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed will prevent such execution, the police officer to whom it is directed may execute the same without such endorsement in any place beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court which issued it.” 19. From the perusal of Section 78 Cr.P.C., it is clear that if the warrant is sent directly to the Executive Magistrate or Deputy Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police outside the jurisdiction of court, then it should be sent by post. Service of the post has been defined under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as registered post. It is pertinent to mention that as per Rule 58 of U.P. General Rules (Criminal) warrants outside the jurisdiction of the court shall be sent to the Superintendent of Police, not to the Magistrate. Therefore, if a warrant is to be sent outside the jurisdiction of the court, then the court will send it to the District Police Chief through registered post, not simply by ordinary post, and required details should be mentioned in the register prescribed by Rule 58 of U.P. General Rules (Criminal), 1977. Format of Register as per Rule 58 is being quoted as under: S. No. The number of printed on the form used Case title and particulars Name and particulars of the person against whom warrant of arrest as issued (accused/wit ness) The officers/ person to whom directed Date of judicial order directing arrest warrant to be issued 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. If it is not sent through the post but through summon cell of police under his jurisdiction as per Section 79 Cr.P.C., then there should be entry in the process register who has received the process of court along with his signature and date. 21. This court has also come across a number of cases where it is found that the concerned court kept on issuing summons, warrants or other processes without mentioning in the order sheet, whether the summon/warrant or other process has been served/executed or not. It is also found that whenever the letters were issued to SHO or SP concerned, the learned Magistrate did not correctly describes the post to whom the letter had been sent for execution of summons/warrants/other processes. 22. In many cases, it was also found that the learned Magistrate or the concerned court issued a warrant without mentioning in the order sheet whether a summons had been served or not or the reason for issuing a warrant. However, as per Section 87 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate or other criminal court must record the reason for issuing warrant after or before issuance of the summons. Section 87 Cr.P.C. is being quoted as under: “87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. —A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest— (a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or (b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.” 23. The above facts show clear negligence on the part of several Presiding Officers especially those dealing with the matters under the Act, 1881. 24. The above facts show clear negligence on the part of several Presiding Officers especially those dealing with the matters under the Act, 1881. 24. Though on finding that police officers are also negligent in the execution of processes of courts, the Director General of Police has issued several Circulars to his sub-ordinate Police Officers, but even then, there should be an effective mechanism at district level to supervise proper execution of the process of court. However, the Director General of Police in his Circular dated 09.12.2024, has specifically mentioned that any officials found negligent in executing the process of the court will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Apart from this, this court is also of the view that even any process which includes summons and warrants received from the court by police pairokar is neither mentioned in the register maintained at the police station or summon cell of the police department nor returned the same to the court then such act of policeman can also attract criminal liability being interference in the administration of justice and concerned court on finding such fault can also prosecute such person under relevant provisions for the interference in the administration of justice. 25. 25. In view of the above, this court feels it appropriate to issue the following directions in the form of Standard Operating Procedure (in short ‘SOP’) for criminal courts till the NSTEP system is properly implemented for criminal court in the State of UP: (i) All the criminal courts should maintain process Register as per the amended Rule 12 of General Rules (Criminal), 1977; (ii) While issuing summons, warrants or other processes, the concerned court should ensure that proper entry has been made regarding the mode of service and person who has received the process of court and other relevant entries in the process register; (iii) In the complaint under the Act, 1881, the concerned court within its jurisdiction, apart from issuing a summons as per the procedure mentioned in Section 62 Cr.P.C. (service through the police) should also send summons to the accused through the registered post as per Section 144 of the Act, 1881 and in all cases where summon is to be served outside the jurisdiction of court, through registered post; (iv) If the concerned court, after recording satisfaction under Section 87 Cr.P.C., issued a warrant against the accused or witness, then the proper entry should be made in the process register, including the person who received the process from the court; (v) Where warrant or other coercive process is to be executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court then if the concerned court decides to send the warrant or other process for execution under Section 78 Cr.P.C. to the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police in whose jurisdiction has to be executed then these process should be sent through registered post and the entry of the same should be maintained in the register prescribed under Rule 58 of the General Rules (Criminal); (vi) Though, Rule 53 of General Rules (Criminal) provides that, in case of negligence or other grave irregularities on the part of the police officers, the Presiding Officer shall bring the matter to the notice of District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police but in case District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police gives no response then in such case, the concerned Presiding Officer shall send report to the High Court for appropriate action but there is no provision for sending the letter to Director General of Police or Chief Secretary as this power is vested in constitutional court like High Court. Therefore, criminal courts should not send letters directly to the Director General of Police in case of non-execution of warrant or other coercive process; (vii) In appropriate cases the Presiding Officer may directly send a warrant to SP/SSP/Commissioner of Police for execution of the warrant. If any police officer including SP/SSP/Commissioner of Police to whom a warrant has been sent for execution, knowingly fails to execute the same then Presiding Officer may issue show cause notice to initiate proceeding u/s 217 and 221 I.P.C. against him; (viii) In case the Presiding Officer finds that despite repeated directions the complainant failed to deposit the process fee as per Rule 17 of General Rules (Criminal) then it may dismiss the complaint under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. instead of keeping it pending for a number of years; (ix) The order sheet of the criminal case should be maintained as per Rule 22 of General Rules (Criminal), which requires that though no detail of the order is needed to be mentioned, however a short description whether the process has been served or returned back and whom the process has been sent for service and also clear description of the officer to whom any letter is sent under Rule 53 of General Rules (Criminal) about the negligence of police officer for non-execution of process of court. 26. In the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act, 1881 the concerned court while passing the summoning order may take guidance from the judgement of Rakesh Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4831. 27. Above directions though specifically issued for the court dealing with cases under the Act, 1881 but same will also be applicable for all criminal courts in appropriate cases. 28. Put up as fresh on 09.01.2025 at 10:00 am in top ten cases. 29. On that date, Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi; Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow and CPC, High Court, Allahabad will appear through video conferencing. 30. Registrar General is directed to circulate copy of this order to all District Judge in U.P. for further appraisal to criminal courts under his judgeship specially dealing with the cases under the Act, 1881. 31. 30. Registrar General is directed to circulate copy of this order to all District Judge in U.P. for further appraisal to criminal courts under his judgeship specially dealing with the cases under the Act, 1881. 31. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send copy of this order to Deputy Director General, NIC, New Delhi, Additional Director General (Technical Services), U.P., Director of Judicial Training & Research Institute, Lucknow and Director General of Police, U.P.