Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2160 of 2019
Revisionist :- Jai Prakash And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K. Mishra,Gopal Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of the instant revision, the prayer sought by the applicants is to quash the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge FTC-1 Mathura, in S.T. No. 787 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 347/2014, u/s 366, 363 IPC, P.S. Gowardhan, District Mathura whereby the revisionists were summoned to face trial u/s 376, 342,366 IPC in exercise of power u/s 319 Cr.P.C.
Submission made by the counsel for the revisionists that the revisionist no. 1 Jai Prakash is named in the FIR whereas revisionist no. 2 is not even named. The FIR shows that on 17.05.2014 around 5 in the morning Mohan Shyam, Jai Prakash and three unknown persons have enticed away the informant's daughter who are witnesses by Bisheshar Singh and Chauhal Singh. The girl was eventually recovered on 31st May, 2014 and thereafter, she was put for recording her statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, the police has arrested Jai Prakash and Mahesh but after investigation a report u/s 169 Cr.P.C. was filed and accordingly, they were freed from jail.
I have perused the statement of the victim as well as Jai Prakash recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. whereby the entire tirade of allegation is against Mohan Shyam and in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has levelled the allegation on Mohan Shyam and Jai Prakash. The complicity of the Mahesh is nowhere in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, committal of the case the statements of the Jal Singh was recorded as P.W.-1 and Rekha as P.W.-2. Thereafter an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 25.07.2016 which was eventually decided by learned trial judge by passing the impugned order.
After considering the entire material on record, I find that the revisionist no. 1 Jai Prakash who is being named accused persons in the FIR and his complicity is spell out in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., is not entitled for any protection.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, in the fitness of circumstances, if the revisionist no. 1 Jai Prakash surrenders within 30 days before the court and if his bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and
another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702,
relevant extract of which reads as under :-
"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission" "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases."
To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra):
(i) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :
(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.
(iii). ......................................................................................................
;
(iv). ...................................................................................................... "
The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist no. 1 in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.
The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.
In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.
In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.
So for as revisionist no.2 Mahesh is concerned, following order is being passed:-
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no. 1.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period six weeks by learned AGA as well as opposite party no. 2 and rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this matter after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist no. 2 only in S.T. No. 787 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 347/2014, u/s 366, 363 IPC, P.S. Gowardhan, District Mathura with the condition as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, which reads as under :-
"Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy was required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings were held up. At times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay was vacated, intimation was not received and proceedings were not taken up. It was directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of civil or criminal trial was operating, the same would come to end on expiry of six months from today unless in exceptional case by speaking order such stay was extended. In cases where stay was granted in future, same would end on expiry of six months from date of such order unless similar extension was granted by speaking order."
It is made clear that in the event if the pleadings are not exchanged or any non-cooperation by contesting parties in filing their counter version it would be open for the court to pass any suitable order at the end of above mentioned upper limit of six months.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Nisha