Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ruldu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ3176, 1996(2)WLC684, 1996(1)WLN132
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
ORDER R.R. Yadav, J.
1. This is third bail application moved on behalf of applicant Ruldu Singh. His first bail application was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11-7-95 with a direction to the learned trial Judge to expedite the disposal of the case.
2. Second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 8-11-95 on a positive suggestion to the effect that alomost all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined long back by the learned trial court, therefore, the trial itself is likely to be disposed of in a shortest possible time. The aforesaid suggestion was accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant and he did not press his second bail application which was rejected on the aforesaid date as not pressed.
3. The accused applicant, who is languishing in jail for more than 34 months; questions delaying tactics being adopted in disposal of his trial by moving this third bail application.
4. In support of third bail application the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision rendered by me in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India, reported in 1996 (1) RCD 16.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and after examining the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) on 2-2-1996 this Court passed an order with implicit faith that the trial of the accused would be concluded expeditiously as all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined long back before rejecting his first bail application on 11 - 7-95. The order passed On 2-2-96 is reproduced below for ready reference :-
^^02&2&96 ftl ls'ku fopkj.k ds lEcU/k esa ;g tekur dk izkFkZuki= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mldh lquokbZ vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ua-
1] Jhxxkuxj dh vnkyr esa 8&2&96 dks eqdjZj gS A izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr rkjh[k dks mijksDr U;k;ky; dks /;ku lkekU; fu;e QkStnkjh ds fu;e 42 o 43 dh vksj vkÑ"V djas vkSj voj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls bl U;k;ky;
dks voxr djk, A tekur ds bl izkFkZuk&i= dks 19&2&96 dks lwphc) fd;k tkos A**
6. After rejection of the bail application by this Court on 11-7-95 the prosecution agency moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning one witness viz. Jagraj Singh which was allowed by the learned trial Judge on the same day.
7. Before examining the aforesaid witness Jagraj Singh summoned under Section 311 Cr. P.C., prosecution agency again moved an another application under the said section on 11-1-96 to examine Sube Singh, Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Yug Bhushan Sharma which was vehemently opposed by the defence by moving an application in writing on 8-2- 96. However, the earlier witness summoned by the court namely Jagraj Singh was examined on 8-2-96.
8. It is further to be noticed that when second application moved on 11-1-96 under Section 311 Cr. P.C. for summoning aforesaid three witnesses came up for consideration then the learned trial Judge irrespective of specific directionof this Court on 11- 7-95 to dispose of the trial expeditiously adopted a myopic attitude and instead of disposing of said application fixed 18-3-96 for its disposal. Thus the learned trial Judge adjou rned the trial for more than a month without recording any reason in writing as envisaged under Rule 43 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980. Now it is brought to my notice that presiding officer has been transferred and it is very difficult to predict when another presiding officer will assume charge of the court of his predecessor in office.
9. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case two eye witnesses named in the FIR have already been declared hostile. Suffice it to observe that before pre-independence such practice was unheard in sessions trial. This practice appears to be continued almost up to 1970 but thereafter slowly and slowly prosecution agency developed a trend to declare its own prosecution witnesses hostile even in sessions trial with impunity. Even today it is difficult for me to recollect a single trial in which investigation and prosecution was launched by C.B.I, and a single witness was declared hostile.
10. This Court has no mechanism to ascertain data of each case declaring prosecution witnesses hostile by prosecution agency itself and the causes leading declaration of prosecution witnesses as hostile.
11. The State machinary has proper mechanism to identify the present malady by utilising its reliable eyes and ears in this matter.
12. To maintain the present tempo of law and order in the State, the Investigating Officers and prosecuting agencies are required to be given proper training and they are also required to be properly equipped in detection of crime, conducting investigation and prosecuting cases in courts of law. If proper attention is not paid forthwith in this direction, law and order situation may take a nose dive as it has taken in neighbouring States.
13. This Court is to take judicial notice of a large number of back log pending in subordinate courts as well as in this Court and all of us manning the judiciary are required to be awakened to the plights of litigants who are knocking at the doors of justice. All of us must also imbibe about the tears of the large number of litigants running from pillar to post to get justice. Detention of accused persons in jail for unreasonable period without trial and pendency of a sessions trial about 34 months is to be viewed seriously.
14. It is encouraging to note that almost all the vacancies of presiding officers in subordinate courts are filled in. The paucity of Hon'ble Judges of this Court is also recently removed. Now no one can complain about paucity of Judges.
15. Therefore, now it is turn of the members of bench to clear the back log expeditiously by discharging their duties meticulously. Unnecessary adjournments that being succeeded in slowing down the present judicial system irreversibly is to be taken note of by all of us.
16. With the aforesaid introspection now I propose to discuss the merit of the present bail application.
17. Indisputably the present applicant is languishing in jail for more than 34 months although all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined prior to rejection of his first bail application on 11 -7-95 which is apparent from the aforesaid order. The concept of speedy trial which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being denied to the applicant for one reason or the other.
18. The question of speedy trial came up for consideration before the constitutional bench of the Apex Court in case of Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R. S. Nayak's case reported in AIR 1992 SC 1701 : (1992 Cri LJ 2717) where their lordships clearly ruled that fair, just and reasonable procedure is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.
19. It is well settled that speedy trial includes investigation, inquiry and trial. In my humble opinion the constitutional philosopy of speedy trial contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has also been projected under the Criminal Procedure Code and by inserting Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P. C. the Parliament made its intention clear that in case if investigation is not completed within a period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared and does furnish bail and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be released under Chapter XXXIII.
20. Thus legislature has fixed outer limit for completion of investigation under Section 167(2) Cr. P. C. but out of respect to judiciary no outer limit is fixed for conclusion of a sessions trial. To meet the aforesaid contingency this High Court itself has framed statutory Rules 42 and 43 of General Rules (Criminal), 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1980') which envisaged that the sessions cases should be disposed of with the greatest possible expedition.
21. The interpretation of Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules of 1980 came up for consideration before me in the case of Kuldeep Singh (1996 (1) R.C.D.16) (supra) where this Court held in paras 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 which reads thus :-
24. In the present case a very sad state of affairs has been brought to my notice and is being argued before me streneously on behalf of the accused applicant, therefore, I consider it proper to take notice of the statutory provisions contemplated under Rules 42 and 43 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1980') also which have been framed by this Court in exercise of its rule making powers conferred upon it by Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the approval of his Excellancy Governor or Rajasthan and published in Rajasthan Part IV-C(1) dated 31-1- 1980.
25. Statutory provisions contemplated under Rule 42 of the Rules of 1980 envisaged that the sessions cases should be disposed of with the greatest possible expedition. Sessions Judge should reserve particular number of days in a week for sessions work. It further provides that in case where the Sessions Judge decides to proceed under Section 228(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. he shall after recording the plea of accused shall fix the date for the evidence of the prosecution and may on the application of the prosecution issue process forthwith for compelling the attendance of witnesses or the production of the document or other thing.
26. Rule 43 of the Rules of 1980 further provides that the Sessions trial should ordinarily be held in order in which commitments are made. The Presiding Officer may however exercise his discretion in the matter of giving priority to certain cases particularly the cases involving capital sentence subsequently received or where the accused is in jail. Once a sessions trial is opened the Sessions Judge shall see that it is disposed of in the same session and not adjourn to next session. The sessions cases shall be taken up day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined and discharged. The Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and if necessary, the Superintendent of Police of the District may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. A sessions trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.
27. The learned counsel for the accused applicant has produced before me the order-sheet of the court of the learned trial Judge which reveals that the aforesaid Rules 42 and 43 made for the expeditious disposal of sessions cases are only being obeyed in its breach and not in its compliance in the present case. It is apparent from the perusal of the order-sheet that the present sessions case where the accused applicant is in jail for more than three years his case is not being taken up from day to day but is adjourned or postponed without any reason being recorded in writing as contemplated under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1980.
28. In my considered opinion sooner the Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules of 1980 are complied with by the courts of Session which is a statutory rule the better it will be.
22. Views expressed by this Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) on point of speedy trial is also fortified from a recent decision taken by their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 JT (SC) 544 : (1994 AIR SCW 5115). Supreme Court after taking note of its previous decision in detail in the aforesaid case specifically ruled that Articles 14,19 and 21 sustain and nourish each other and any law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must prescribe a procedure which can said to be just, fair and reasonable i.e. procedure which promotes speedy trial.
23. In my considered opinion the statutory Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules of 1980 prescribe a procedure which can said to be just, fair and reasonable within the meaning of Artcle 21 of the Constitution of India and the aforesaid rules promotes speedy trial. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the views expressed by me in the case of Kuldeep Singh (1996 (1) RCD 16) (supra) are hereby reiterated.
24. Now all of us must imbibe that principle of speedy trial evolved by the apex court is binding upon us within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India as precedent. Under Article 144 of the Constitution of India all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India are bound to act in the aid of the Supreme Court pronouncement. It is further to be noticed that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) interpreting statutory Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules of 1980 is also binding upon all the subordinate courts of the State of Rajasthan and from future any breach of the aforesaid rules will be viewed seriously.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant streneously urged before me that the second application moved under Section 311 Cr.P. C. by the prosecution agency on 11-1-96 for summoning Sube Singh, Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Yug Bhushan Sharma is not maintainable. In my considered opinion, this question should be left open to be decided by the learned trial Judge himself expeditiously inasmuch as aforesaid question involved factual controversy.
26. It is also well to remember that in those cases where it is found by this Court that there is unreasonable delay in disposal of sessions trial and accused has not contributed anything in such delay the quashing of the proceedings or acquittal of the accused is not only remedy but in suitable cases accused can be released on bail.
27. From the facts and circumstances stated above I am satisfied to the effect that accused applicant who is languishing in jail for more than 34 months has not contributed anything which can be said to have occasion delay in disposal of sessions trial. In fact it is prosecution agency which is adopting delaying tactics in the present case.
28. Thus in the present case I am fully satisfied that the trial of the present applicant is being delayed beyond reasonable time, therefore, I consider it just and proper to release applicant Ruldu Singh son of Shri Mukand Singh on bail provided he furnishes a personal bono in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. l, Sriganganagar camp Srikaranpur for his appearance in the trial court on each and every day of hearing or whenever called upon to do so till the final disposal of the trial.
29. Before parting with the order I would like to observe that possibility of delay in disposal of sessions trial can be arrested if statutory provisions contained under Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules of 1980 are followed in its letter and spirit. Respectibility of the judiciary in the estimation of the people should always be treated a paramount consideration. Respectibility of judiciary is call of the hour of the day in order to make its arm strong to make the executive work for the welfare of the people of the State. This can be made possible if members of Bench firmly resolve to wiped out the tears of the litigant public by clearing the back log meticulously in a shortest possible time and law is not "held in abeyance".
30. After dictation of order, learned members of the Bar present in court made a request to make the order reportable. The request is allowed and the order is made reportable.
31. I further feel just and proper to direct the office of regstry to circulate a copy of this order to every District Head-quarter Judgeship as well as out line courts to apprise the learned trial courts about the concept of speedy trial enunciated by the Apex Court and about the interpretation of Rules 42 and 43 of the Rules of 1980 of this Court to ensure the disposal of the sessions cases with greatest possible expedition as envisaged in the aforesaid rules.
32. A copy of this order may also be sent to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for evolving a mechanism as he thinks fit to make the Investigating Officers more efficient in detection of crimes, investigations and prosecution of cases in courts of law by imparting proper training and by providing proper latest scientific equipments and also to make them accountable.