Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 19]

Supreme Court of India

Nimeon Sangma & Ors vs Home Secretary, Govt. Of Meghalaya & Ors on 30 April, 1979

Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1518, 1979 SCR (3) 785, AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1518, (1979) 3 SCR 785 (SC), (1979) 3 SCR 785, 1979 UJ (SC) 809, 1979 CRI APP R (SC) 246

Author: V.R. Krishnaiyer

Bench: V.R. Krishnaiyer, R.S. Pathak, A.D. Koshal

           PETITIONER:
NIMEON SANGMA & ORS.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1979

BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:
 1979 AIR 1518		  1979 SCR  (3) 785
 1979 SCC  (1) 700


ACT:
     Administration    of    Justice-Pre-trial	  detention-
Expeditious disposal  of cases	including investigations and
trials-Sections 167,  209 &  309 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.



HEADNOTE:
     In their  petition for  the issue	of a  writ of habeas
corpus, the petitioners alleged illegal detention of a large
number of persons under guise of the judicial process.
^
     HELD :  1. Criminal Justice breaks down at a point when
expeditious  trial  is	not  attempted	while  the  affected
parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code
in Sections  167, 209  and 309 has emphasised the importance
of expeditious	disposal of  cases including  investigations
and trials. [786E]
     2. The  State Government to take a policy decision with
a view	to ensure  that accused persons, too indigent to set
in motion  the judicial process, do not suffer incarceration
silently. [787B]
     3. The  Government will  do well  to  comply  with	 the
spirit of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure especially in the
matter	of   persons  sought  to  be  bound  over  for	good
behaviour, persons  against whom  summons cases	 are pending
and persons  who have  been in	custody for  more  than	 six
months This  will involve  a mass  release from	 jails,	 but
Government has to pay homage in substance and reality to the
provisions of the Constitution and the Code. [787C]
     The Court directed that :-
     (a) The  State do	consent to  release all	 persons who
have been  in custody  for over	 six months and whose trials
have not  commenced or	against whom  charge sheets have not
been laid  excepting in	 those cases  under Sections 302 and
395 I.P.C. [786G]
     (b) The  State shall  complete investigation within two
months in  cases where	charge sheets  have not	 been  laid.
[786H]
     (c) The  Sessions Court concerned should dispose of the
cases where  chargesheets have	been laid and commitment has
been made within six months.
						      [786H]



JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 211 of 1979.

K. Hingorani for the Petitioners.

D. N. Mukherjee for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention of a large number of persons under guise of the judicial process.

786

Even without going into details, we are satisfied that petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 should be released on their own bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to their reporting to the nearest police station once every fortnight and appearing in court whenever called upon to do so to take their trial. We direct accordingly.

So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the State in its affidavit swear that there is no such person in custody in connection with any case. This matter will be scrutinised further by the State so that it may satisfy itself that no one is in custody except under due process of law.

This Court in its earlier order dated March 5, 1979 has directed the State to file a statement containing particulars of the under-trial prisoners who have been confined in Jail for a period of over six months without their trials having commenced. Further details as to the ages of such under-trials, the dates from which they were confined and the offences with which they were charged were also called for. In the reply statement put in by the respondent, we find a large number of cases where detention for considerable periods, without the trial having even commenced, is being suffered by various persons. Criminal justice breaks down, at a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasised the importance of expeditious disposal of cases including investigations and trials. It is unfortunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have been such considerable delay in investigations by the police in utter disregard of the fact that a citizen has been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is accused of an offence. We do not approve of this course and breach of the rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this chaotic state of affairs verging on wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under the Constitution especially under Article 21 as interpreted by this Court.

Even so we do not wish to pass any orders at the moment until more particulars are brought to our notice. It will suffice for the present-and counsel for the State assures us that any direction given by this Court will be promptly complied with-that we direct the State to consent to release all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom charge sheets have not been laid. But make one exception in cases where sections 302 and 395, IPC are involved. We direct that the State shall complete the investigation within two months from today where charge sheets have not been laid and further direct the Sessions Court concerned to dispose of the cases where charge sheets have been laid and commitment has been made, within six months from today. A report will be made to 787 this Court at the end of six months from today by the State. We must emphatically record our view that there has been a self-condemnation in the statement put in by the State Government in that in quite a number of cases which are not of a serious character and even in those which involve serious offences, investigations have been pending for nearly two years. There are cases where persons have been in custody for five years-a situation too ghastly for a civilised country like ours. We therefore draw the attention of the State Government to take a policy decision with a view to ensure that accused persons, too indigent to set in motion the judicial process, do not suffer incarceration silently. The Government will do well to comply with the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially in the matter of persons sought to be bound over for good behaviour, persons against whom summons cases are pending and persons who have been in custody for more than six months. Maybe this will involve a mass release from Jails, but Government has to pay homage in substance and reality to the provisions of the Constitution and the Code. With these observations, and directions, we dispose of this petition. 

N.V.K.					   Petition disposed
788