Satbir vs The State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The present case is a glaring example of non-compliance of the directions and even successive directions issued by this Court. Thrice this Court had directed disposal of the criminal trial of the cases, subject matter of this petition, within the specified period. The first order was dated 8.2.1992 where the Court had directed the conclusion of trial within three months. The cases, however, have not been decided even after a lapse of four years. Thus the question that squarely falls for consideration is as to whether this Court may like to exercise some amount of restraint while directing disposal of criminal trials within a fixed period. Further what course of action should be adopted by the Courts if the directions issued for such disposal are not adhered to by the trial Courts.

The facts of the case in hand are that the petitioners before this Court were arrested in F.I.R. No. 111 dated 18.7.1990 under Sections 302 : 148 : 149 I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, of Police Station, Kalanaur. Upon investigation the petitioners were directed to face trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, after the commitment of the case. The petitioners are in jail since the date of occurrence and have been behind the bars for the last more than 4 years and 9 months. They filed bail application in this court which was numbered as Criminal Misc. No. 140-M of 1992 and was disposed of by Hon''ble Mr. Justice C.S. Chahal (as his Lordship then was) with a direction that the trial Court should complete the trial within three months from the next date of hearing. Since the trial could not be completed within 3 months, after sometime the petitioners again moved Criminal Misc. No. 6606-M of 1992 for granting them bail, which was decided by Hon''ble Mr. Justice J.L. Gupta, vide his order dated 12.6.1992, with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of the order.

The prosecution concluded its case and the statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded on 25.8.1992 u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the case has been adjourned several times for the purposes of arguments and defence evidence and till date the case has not been decided. The petitioner, therefore, filed another Criminal Misc. No. 7253-M of 1993, which was dismissed by the High Court. It is stated that the learned Sessions Judge is prolonging the trial for no rhyme or reason. Vide order dated 24.3.1995 the trial Court had directed that no DW is present. Moreover, powers under the designated Court in the connected case had not so far been received. Case was adjourned for defence evidence, if any, and arguments to 25.5.1995 and for awaiting powers of the Designated Court. It is submitted that still another application was filed before the High Court in which comments were called for and application was dismissed. However, certain oral observations are stated to have been made by the Hon''ble Judge. According to the petitioners, the case is not triable by a Designated Court but by the Court of Sessions for the offences under the Indian Penal Code read with provisions of the Indian Arms Act.

As a result of the above facts the petitioners have filed the present petition for being released on bail during the pendency of the trial.

There is no doubt that the petitioners have been in jail for a considerable period and the trial has not concluded inspite of the fact that twice clear directions were issued by the High Court for concluding the trial within a stipulated period. It cannot be said that such orders passed by the High Court for expeditious trial of the case can be taken so lightly. These orders have their meaning and must be complied with. The High Court passes such directions upon considering the facts and circumstances of each case. May be the limitations of the trial Courts with regard to the number of Courts, cases pending before them, inadequate infra-structure and delay by concerned agencies including the defence, but still the trial Courts are obliged to adhere to such directions and make all serious attempts to conclude the trial within a stipulated period.

In the cases where the Court cannot conclude the trials within the stipulated period, least that is expected from the trial Court is, then that Court should send the comments mentioning the reasons because of which the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period and then endeavour its best and put in all efforts to conclude the trials within a reasonable time thereafter. It is a settled rule of jurisprudence that the Courts never pass orders which are not intended to be executed. Thus, the orders passed by the superior courts cannot be ignored. If the Courts below adopt such attitude of ignoring orders of the superior Courts, it will be not only prejudicial to our judicial system, but would also reflect a kind of irresponsible attitude of the Courts concerned, towards the directions of the Superior Courts. The trial Court is not powerless if the prosecution or the defence are obstructing the expeditious progress of the trial and the trial Court, therefore, is duty bound to pass such appropriate orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case irrespective of the fact that sometimes such orders may look apparently harsh. The directions passed by the High Court are normally intended to provide to an accused an expeditious trial and to avoid undue restriction upon his liberty which the accused has to undergo during the pendency of the trial.

It is certainly a matter of regret that the learned trial Court in the present case has neither cared to sent any explanation at its own, giving reasons for delay, nor concluded the trial within the stipulated period. For this delay whether the learned Sessions Judge who is presently in chair, or his predecessor, are responsible, is immaterial for all practical purposes and intents. Administration of justice must not depend on individual but must be a collective effort at all levels of judicial hierarchy so that the persons awaiting justice from Courts can receive the same in a most expeditious and effective manner. May be this Court would have to seriously consider this aspect of the matter and exercise some kind of a restraint while issuing such directions. An accused may or may not be entitled to bail probably depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case one of them being the period of his detention in jail during trial, but passing ineffective orders or the orders which are not executed by all concerned is bound to effect our legal system. The Court may decline or accept bail, but once such an order is passed by the High Court, it is obligatory on the part of the Courts below to carry out the same in its spirit and substance.

Thus, it is considered appropriate to issue directions to the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, to submit detailed comments relating to the progress of the trial right from its commencement and with more emphasis on the period immediately preceding the passing of directions by this Court as afore-stated. These comments must be submitted to the Court through the Registrar before 9.10.1995 positively. If the comments are not received before that date by the Registrar of this Court, then alone the learned Sessions Judge is directed to be present in Court with complete records of this case.

The question if the present case is triable by Designated Court or is triable under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, would be determined by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. However, the Registrar of this Court has informed that the powers of the Designated Court were conferred and communicated to the Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide letter dated 6.5.1995.

It is desirable that in future all Courts concerned would take appropriate note of the directions issued by the High Court for expeditious trial and would comply with them without fail. In the event if the Courts are unable to comply with such directions, it is the bounden duty of the Courts concerned to inform the Registrar of this Court the reasons for not concluding the trial within the stipulated period and such further time that the Court consider necessary for this purpose.

With these directions this petition is dismissed. The Registrar shall report the matter with regard to compliance of this order on 2.11.1995. A copy of this order be also sent to all Districts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh for necessary compliance. Copy be also furnished to the counsel for the parties.