SUBODH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the earlier order dated 18.4.96, it was observed that the trial if does not show reasonable progress then the applicant shall be free to repeat his prayer after 31.7.96. The proceedings recorded by the trial Court after 18.4.96 show the pathetic and deplorable picture as under : -

(2.) THE case was taken up on 26.4.96. Nothing was done and the matter was listed for hearing on question of charge on 6.5.96. On 6.5.96, there was no representation on behalf of the prosecution. Accused Subodh Kumar was not produced under the protest that guard was not available. The matter was adjourned to 17.5.96. On 17.5.96 the counsel for the present applicant commenced his argument and brought to the notice of the trial court that the documents have not been filed with the challan and the matter be heard without the said documents. The learned trial Court abruptly adjourned the case observing that the arguments of each and every accused is to be heard. It also observed that the documents and the property have not been produced before the Court, therefore, the documents and property be produced in the court on 7.6.96. On the -same day, it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that certain documents were sent to the hand -writing expert and the report had not been received. The trial Court observed that the said document etc. be produced at the time of hearing. The hearing was fixed for 7.6.96. But for appearance of the accused the matter was fixed for 31.5.96. I fail to understand that why the interim date was granted if noting was to be done. The instructions of this Court were to be religiously and sincerely observed that in case of under trial prisoners, the case should have been fixed for hearing on the question of charge within 15 days from the date of the first hearing. On 31.5.96, the accused was produced and he was sent back. On 7.6.96 and 14.6.96 the learned presiding officer was on leave, therefore, nothing could done. The matter was adjourned for 22.6.96. It was again adjourned to 5.7.96. On 5.7.96, the present applicant had produced the copy of the order dated 28.6.96 passed by this Court wherein the applicant was granted temporary bail. The learned trial Court recorded that the property and the documents were not produced. The matter was adjourned to 23.7.96. The accused was released with the directions that he must surrender on or before 29.7.96. 15.7.96 was fixed for appearance of the accused.

(3.) THE present petition was filed on 22.7.96. On 2.8.96 the counsel for the applicant informed this Court that the applicant has already been surrendered in view of the earlier directions given by this Court. On 12.8.96, the counsel for the applicant was directed to file the certified copy of the proceedings of the lower court. The matter was directed to be listed on 23.8.96. The matter could not be listed on 23.8.96 and was listed only on 9.9.96. Counsel for the State prayed for time to requisition and produce the case diary. It was again listed on 27.9.96 as the case diary was not available with the counsel for the State. The matter was to be listed for hearing on 4.10.96. On 4.10.96, the counsel for the State informed that in spite of three wireless messages the concerned officer has not sent the case diary. This Court observed that if the officer concerned does not remain present with the case diary on 11.10.96, a warrant may be issued against him. Probably this order has brought out the concerned officer from his slumber. He is present in the Court.