GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE hearing the WP (C) No. 1175/06, on 15. 6. 07, this court was troubled to take note of an allegation that a Sessions case No. 38/03 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Golaghat, wherein the accused, a police officer, was charged with the offence u/s 302 IPC, was still pending. It was brought to the notice of this court that the offence took place on 20. 8. 99. If the allegations made in the writ petition are to be true, the process of law took eight long years without bearing any fruit. After passing an appropriate order in the said writ petition on the above mentioned date, one of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice) thought it fit to verify on the administrative side as to why the said Sessions Case was pending for such a long time, more particularly, in the background of the fact that the accused is a police officer and the offence is alleged to have taken place in a Cinema Hall where hundreds of people were present. It was informed by the Registry a couple of days later that the Sessions Case stood disposed of by a judgment dated 5. 4. 06 and the sole accused was acquitted.

(2.) IN order to satisfy the conscience of the court, records of the Sessions Case were called for on the administrative side. To the horror of this court, it was noticed that a Sessions Case of this nature was disposed of by a cryptic judgment running into two pages. It was also observed that though as many as 10 witnesses were examined, testimony of not even a single witness, except the evidence of PW-8, was discussed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, an order on the administrative side was passed directing the matter to be placed before this Court on the judicial side in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present revision was placed before this court.

(3.) BY an order dated 26. 6. 07 for the reasons recorded therein, we though it fit to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in the above mentioned Sessions Case and we directed notices to be issued to the respondents. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 17. 7. 07. Though the 1st respondent was represented by Mr. A. C. Buragohain, learned Addl. Advocate General, it was brought to our notice that the 3rd respondent, the accused, was not yet served by then. Therefore, by the order dated 17. 7. 07, we directed the District Magistrate, Golaghat to cause service of notice of pendency of the present revision on the 3rd respondent.