RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the theory of social contract as fund, say. in Locke, Rousseau and Kant? Or the classical doctrine of utilitarianism as formulated by Bentham and Sidgwick and the utilitarian economists Edgeworth and Pigou ? Or, for that matter the Intuitionist theories of the type found in Brian Barry? And then, which one is perfect or say nearly perfect? While the legal philosphere are busy in their quest to know what justice really means and in the process are propounding theories or demolising one or the other with an exchange of dialectical firarms, a common man is watching helplessly serious invasions being made upon his rights and freedom by means known or novel adopted more often advertently and sometimes even inadvertently reducing substance into a shadow. Justice which is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of system of thought becomes an easy target. Injustice may ensue on account of failure of judges or others in authority to adhere to the appropriate rules or interpretations thereof in deciding claims. It may even be where already disadvantaged are also arbitarily treated in particular cases when the rules might give them some security. 'Even what has come to be known as "imperfect procedural justice may give birth to injustice springing of course from a fortuitous combination of circumstances which defeats the purpose of the legal rules. The present is a case which brings forth how, despite the presence of sound laws, a well-oiled judicial machinery and in array of judges eager to deliver justice, the entire System may be distorted and brought to a grinding halt even by the indifference of a few clerks. In such a scenario the fight of the legal philosophers over their differet theories of justice .appears to be comical. As for the common man, who bothers about his dead eyes and. dropping mouth ?

(2.) it all started on the petition of an accused who alleged having already undergone long incarceration of five years with no signs of even commencement of the trial. The report of the trial judge showed that he was greatly handicapped by the non-posting of a regular Public Prosecutor to his court. Nothing that the problam was endemic and that on .its account criminal justice was suffering, I directed tlie State and the District Judge to furnish within 15 days the number of Prosecutors posted in the courts of Sessions and "the reason for not providing sufficient number of Prosecutors in the Courts. This was on January 28. 1994. The matter was thereafter adjourned to February 22, 1.994 when the State sought adjournment and assured that it would submit the report wilhin a week's time. On March 8, 1994 which was the next date, the statement filed by the State was found to be at variance with the data supplied by the District Judge and since the counsel for the State wanted to have a fresh look, the matter was ordered to be renotified on April 7, 1994. On April 7, 1994, I passed the following order :

(3.) On May 2, 1994 the learned counsel for the State placed on record a letter written by the Deputy Secretary (Home) and addressed to their counsel Ms. Meera Bhatia stating that it was for the Central Government to create posts of Additional prosecutors/Senior Prosecutors and that a proposal for creation of 12 additional posts of Additional Prosscutors/Senior Prosecutors had been sent to the Ministry of Home Affair on September 22, 1992 but no sanction had so far been received. It was because, of this that. notice was issued to the Central Government for May 5, 1994 on which date Ms. Bhatia appearing for the NCT. of Delhi and the Union of India assured me that the matter was being looked into and that something could emerge "within a period of seven to ten days". I adjourned the matter to May 17 1994 expecting sunshine. I was wrong. This is what I noticed on the order sheet of May 17,1994: