SINNA VANKATESH KANCHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from jail, which is defended by Mr. Vyas as amicus curiae appointed by Court brings to the fore some of the disquieting facts with regard to the hearing of the appeals in this Court and the delays that are overtaking the process of speedy and fair administration of the Criminal Law and Justice. Before we turn to the merits of the matter, which involves the conviction of the present accused for an offence of murder of one Pasco D'souza by causing him a stab wound during the incident that occurred at night between July 12 and July 13, 1975 at Santacruz (East), we may first refer to the anxious submissions made by Mr. Vyas with regard to the delay in the matter of the hearing of this appeal. Mr. Vyas pointed out that the prisoner is an indigent person and comes from poor strata of the society. He has no means to defend himself or to engage counsel and in this background the learned Counsel submitted that the dates, which show how the delay has been caused, should be taken note of. The present appeal was admitted on December 6, 1976, it appears through jail and it was argued by the appointed Counsel There was no prayer for the release of the prisoner on bail. Ordinarily, when matters of graver offences are put forth in appeal in this Court, they are expected to be heard as urgently as possible. However, Mr. Vyas complains that this case would show that the urgency and the speed, which are the basic norms in the dispensation of criminal justice, have been singular casualty having the effect that allthrough the prisoner is lodged in the jail and in all likelihood on merits he was entitled to freedom. He referred us to the facts that in the month of April 1977, he enquired in the office about the readiness of the appeal, but the paper book was not ready. Then he approached the Principal Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay where paper books are prepared, but did not get satisfactory reply and was assured that the paper book may get ready as early as possible and thereafter he has, almost every year, been trying to approach the Registry to find out whether the paper book was ready. It was only on April 27, 1981, i.e., almost after four years, the learned Counsel submitted that he received an intimation about the paper book. It was after that he made motion with the Registrar and then this matter has been placed for hearing before us. The record from our office shows that the submission of the learned Counsel on the chronology of facts is more or less correct for after the appeal was admitted, the records were returned on December 17, 1976, and continuously reminders were issued to the lower Court of February 8, 1977, April 5, 1977, May 18, 1977 and August 17, 1977, for the purpose of preparation of the paper book. It was only on March 20, 1981, that the records, along with the paper book, were received in this Court followed by the Muddemal articles received on October 5, 1981.

(2.) These facts are highly disturbing, particularly when the prisoner is not freed on bail and is facing a grave charge of murder. By themselves such delays in hearing of matters are likely to affect the confidence of the public with regard to the speedy dispensation of justice.

(3.) It hardly needs emphasis that all the Courts which are required under the Rules to forward paper books for the purpose of the hearing of Criminal Appeals are duty bound to make them ready at the earliest and without any delay despatch the same to this Court so as to enable the appeal Court to deal with the matter effectively and expeditiously. We are surprised that in spite of five reminders from the office the paper book should have been so mush delayed. We hope that these observations will be taken note of by all concerned and no occasion will arise for this Court to institute an investigatory proceeding that affects the speedy dispensation of justice in a system which is already reeling under the heavy burden of dockets of delays and mounting arrears. Human efforts and human anxiety of all concerned is the only solution so as to uphold the system and to maintain the utility and respect of the system itself. The usual excuse that sufficient staff is not available cannot be the explanation nor the answer to the ultimate mischief which threatens the very system by such unexplained omission. Recording out displeasure on such inordinate delay on the part of the machinery responsible for preparing and dispatching the paper book we would proceed to consider the matter on merit.