Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju @ Sanjeev vs State Of M.P. on 23 February, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.618/2007
(Sanju @ Sanjeev Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated : 23.02.2019
None for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Singh Ghuraiya, learned Public Prosecutor, for
the respondent/State.
As nobody is appearing for the appellant to argue this case which is pending since 2007, Shri Ashok Jain, Advocate is appointed as a counsel from Legal Aid to prepare and argue the matter.
While hearing this case we discovered that one of the accused namely Naranyandas absconded during the trial though he was a named accused but trial could not be conducted against him. It is also revealed from the record that record was requisitioned for conducting trial of Narayandas as is apparent from the order-sheet dated 07.08.2012 and Narayandas has filed Criminal Appeal No.38/13 which has not been tagged with this appeal by the registry, though the judgment dated 1st December, 2012, makes a mention of earlier judgment dated 27th July, 2007. Further order-sheet dated 21.12.2012 by the concerned Dealing Assistant makes a mention of return of the record. There is a fault apparent on the part of the registry, inasmuch as, in Chapter XI Rule, 23 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008, it is provided that there will be an assignment of tracks to the cases. Rule 23 under Chapter XI reads as under:-
"23. Customized software shall, at an appropriate stage of processing, automatically assign different tracks to the cases in accordance with the provisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Case Flow Management 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.618/2007 (Sanju @ Sanjeev Vs. State of M.P.) Rules, 2006."
Therefore, either there is a fault in the software as it has failed to keep track of the appeal originating out of the same crime number or else lack of diligence on the part of the dealing Clerks scrutinizing the records before listing of the case as they have failed to point out pendency of another case originating out of same crime number and to club it with Criminal Appeal No.618/2007.
Let explanation be obtained by the Principal Registrar from the Incharge of the I.T. Cell those responsible for listing of the caseas to what kind of software they have prepared which is not permitting clubbing of the cases originating out of same crime number involving same issue which amounts to duplication of same work and what remedial action they propose to take within seven days. Responsibility be also fixed by the Principal Registrar as to which of the Section and person has been responsible for not tagging the case i.e. Criminal Appeal No.38/2013 with the present criminal appeal.
List after two weeks along with the aforesaid enquiry report.
( Vivek Agarwal) (G.S. Ahluwalia) mani Judge Judge SUBASRI MANI 2019.03.02 12:22:21 -08'00'