VANLALSIANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 286 of the Constitution of India wherein the Petitioner complaint that his right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated and his statutory right of getting bail under Section 167. Code of Criminal Procedure has been breached by the Courts in Mizoram. Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Squarely applicable in Mizoram and the Judicial Officers are bound by the provisions of the Code.

(2.) WE are fully aware of the law and order condition in Mizoram. However, the mandatory, provision of the Constitution; as well at the statutory provision cannot be breached in the name of law and order. The Petitioner is Indian and he has Constitutional and statutory safeguards and they must be preserved and protected. We have beard about the difficulties of the administrative machinery of the Union Territory for quick investigation of the cases and submissions of the charge sheets. However, we would observe that this plea cannot be a handle for detaining the people of Mizoram and keeping them confined in jail year after year. Indeed the security of the State and the maintenance of public order are of primary important. However individual liberty cannot be allowed to be trampled. In the instant case the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution cannot be denied on any pretext or pretence.

(3.) WE have noticed that, in some of the petitions incarcerated persons complained that binding decisions of this Court were not give in importance and passed over by learned Magistrates talking up the cases. There cannot be any alibi for not submitting charge sheet in a case registered in the year 1982. 2 years have gone by. Dr. M.K. Sharma; learned Standing Counsel, Mizoram submits that the registration year of Lawngtlai P.S. case might be of 1983. Even if we assume that both the case were registered in the year 1983, yet 12 long months have gone by and the police have failed to perform their legal duty in submitting charge sheets. The plea that sanction could not be obtained is no plea. The authorities must be up and doing if in fact they want to prosecute the accused person and do not desire to detain him illegally on the pretext of getting sanction. How is it that the Courts remained silent spectator and did not act in accordance with the provisions of law? Why the Courts in seisin of the case did not consider the principles of law, enunciated in Zarzoliana v. Government of Mizoram : 1981 Cri. L.J. 1736 and other Division Bench Judgments of this Court accepting the same view? The Courts in Mizoram are bound by the decisions. To provide early relief to the Petitioner we make the following directions: