Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.and Others

We have heard Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General, assisted by learned Government Advocate, Sri V.S. Mishra.

In this matter two affidavits dated 1042007 have been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Home Department, State of U.P. and DGP, CBCID, Lucknow.

On 1232007, we had passed the following orders :

�On the last date, i.e. 2022007, learned Advocate General has given an undertaking that the earlier orders of this Court shall be complied with before 3132007 and in this connection an order has also been passed by the Principal Secretary (Home) directing all the Secretaries, DGP, DG, CBCID to dispose of all the pending matters before 31st March, 2007.

To ensure that the said undertaking is complied with, we list this case on 1142007.�

We regret to note that the solemn undertaking given to us has not been honoured although the learned Advocate General has strenuously submitted that he had given the aforesaid undertaking on the basis of instructions received by him from the concerned officers and the noncompliance was due to elections and as a result of change of guard, i.e. the Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. and DGP etc. by the Election Commission. We regret to note that we are not satisfied with this explanation as we have been endeavoring since 2182006, that is for a period of almost 8 months to ensure that the investigations of the cases which are being investigated by the CBCID are concluded expeditiously that sanctions are obtained in the cases of police and other public servants against whom chargesheets have been prepared and that arrests of the concerned accused are effected which are pending for a very large number of years.

The supplementary affidavit of the S.P. CBCID contains a chart (Annexure 1), which shows that until 1232007 as many as 1189 persons were wanted, out of whom 337 were wanted for a period of over 10 years, 515 for a period between 5 to 10 years, 168 for a period of 1 to 3 years and 42 for a period of less than one year. In the said categories of cases, arrests were effected or proceedings under Section s 82/83 Cr.P.C. were initiated in respect of 42 of 337 wanted accused, 5 out of 515 wanted accused, 31 out of 168 wanted accused, 4 out of 127 wanted accused and 24 out of 42 wanted accused, i.e. only a total of 106 accused had either been arrested or proceedings under Section s 82/83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated against them. The chart further showed that so far as 23 accused persons were concerned, there were orders staying their arrests, 11 of which have been pending for over 10 years. In 2 cases sanction had not been given by the State Government, in 59 cases reinvestigation had been ordered, in 10 cases reinvestigation was being done, hence the accused were not needed to be arrested, in 5 cases the accused had died and in 1 case after the decision of the Court their arrest was not needed. This figure along with the earlier figure of 106 persons only amounted to a total of 206 persons. The arrest of 983 persons was still pending of which there was no explanation whatsoever. This included pending arrests of 212 persons for over 10 years, 505 persons for a period of 5 to 10 years, 136 persons for a period of 3 to 5 years, 112 persons for a period of 1 to 3 years and 18 persons for a period of less than one year. This would imply that arrests of 983 out of 1189 persons or in 83 per cent of cases was still pending without any explanation.

In 893 cases of police and nonpolice public servants arrests were said to be pending because of want of sanctions. Out of these, sanctions of 207 persons were pending for over 10 years, 439 for a period of 5 to 10 years, 133 persons for a period of 3 to 5 years, 112 persons for a period of 1 to 3 years, and 2 persons for a period of less than 1 year. In the affidavit on behalf of the Secretary (Home) it had only been mentioned in paragraph 2 that due to pendency of 23 cases (which figure had subsequently increased to 33) in various Courts, sanctions were not being given by the State Government on advice from the law department, and the Spl. Secretary (Home) had directed the DGP (Prosecutions) to make efforts to expedite hearings of the said cases in the Courts and a Special Prosecuting Officer had been appointed as a nodal officer for the purpose, so that sanctions could eventually be granted in these matters. A letter dated 2232007 has also been sent by the State Government to the Central Government to grant sanctions in the cases (whose number is unspecified) which fell in its purview. A letter of the same date has also been issued by the Secretary (Home) to various departments in the U.P. Government for grant of sanctions pending at their levels. However to us, these belated letters appear more for the record, and there does not appear to be any sincere effort or even an intention to grant sanctions in the 893 cases pending for sanction (as mentioned in Annexure 1 of the PGP''s affidavit) for long periods of time.

In the cases of 90 persons, efforts had been made for effecting the arrests of the accused persons but without success. Annexure2 of the DGP''s affidavit further shows that till 1232007, 506 investigations were pending and till the period of 842007 investigations had been completed only in 98 cases and investigations in 408 cases were still pending.

The totality of these facts reveals that there is abysmal non compliance of our orders. Therefore, we now direct that by 1552007, there shall be positive compliance of the present order and our earlier, orders dated 1232007 and 2022007 and in the event of any noncompliance with the aforesaid orders, the DGP, CBCID and the Principal Secretary, Home, shall appear in person in this Court on the said date to explain the lapse. We also direct the G.A. and the Registry to take steps for immediate listing and disposal of the 23 writ petitions and other cases which may be pending in this Court because of which grant of sanctions or the arrests of the concerned public servants by the CBCID have been stayed.

List on 1552007.

Decided accordingly.