SUJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The report of the trial court contained in letter No. 121 dated 5th of May 2011 appears at flag-A by which it has been reported that the trial has not been concluded due to non-production of witnesses for which the Presiding Officer had written letters to the Superintendent of Police, Munger, District Magistrate, Munger as also the D.I.G. of Munger. The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner Sujay Kumar was dismissed by me by order dated 29.9.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32658 of 2010. That order contained a clear direction to the Superintendent of Police, Munger for production of witnesses including the investigating officer who as per the report of the learned trial Judge are still to be produced before him for their evidence. This Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Munger to issue a proper order to the officer-in-charge of Jamalpur police station in respect of Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 140 of 2007 to produce the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet on day to day basis so that the trial Judge who had fixed a time frame for himself for concluding the trial may deliver the judgment within that time frame. While passing that particular order, the court was expecting the trial Judge to deliver judgment within the time frame fixed by it and that duration of time was to run from the day he had received the copy of the order dated 29.9.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32658 of 2010. It is distressing for this Court to learn from the report of the trial Judge that in spite of there being no direction or instruction of law or even any executive instructions of this Court, the trial Judge was writing letters to the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police, Munger as also the D.I.G., Range Munger. It has repeatedly been pointed out that Judges are not supposed to enter into correspondence with the police officer of any rank or any one for production of witnesses; they are required to pass orders issuing directions to produce the witnesses and the copy of this orders have to be transmitted to the concerned police or other officers for compliance and in case of non-compliance, appropriate action has to be initiated by the trial Judge as per the directions of the Cr.P.C./I.P.C. Judges are not supposed to enter into correspondence with any employee of the State in connection with any judicial business which could be pending before them. In addition to that what this Court wants to impress upon the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger is that he should have consulted the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. and should have imposed heavy cost upon the prosecution for seeking unnecessary adjournments and should have directed the cost to be realized from the salary of the officer-in-charge of Jamalpur police station by which the case had been investigated into. That particular order was required to be passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger particularly when the duty of production of witnesses is legally cast upon the officer-in-charge of police station which had investigated the case as may appear from Section 170(2) Cr.P.C. This is a matter of regret that the learned trial Judge was not identifying his duties and was not consulting the provisions of Cr.P.C. and was simply begging production of witnesses of mere employees of the State, like, the Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate or the D.I.G. It was expected that the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger had not allowed himself to be equated with any employee of the State because one of the litigating parties before him was the State. The duty was cast, as just have been pointed out, upon its employees to produce the witnesses. The court trusts that henceforth the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger shall comply with the directions contained herein by imposing heavy exemplary costs against the State for seeking adjournments on account of non-production of the witnesses and direct the cost to be realized by attaching the part of the salary of the officer-in-charge of the police state (sic--station?) by realizing the amount for being transmitted to the Nazarat of Civil Court, Munger.

(2.) Coming to the non-compliance part of the order dated 29.9.2010, the court feels that it is high time that the mere employees of the State who are ordained under law to produce witnesses under the directions contained in that particular order are also called upon to show cause as to why the non-compliance of this courts order dated 29.9.2010 be not deemed as an utter act of contempt of this Court and appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against them. The office of the Court is required to issue a Rule against Superintendent of Police, Munger making the rule returnable in four weeks.

(3.) This petition shall be listed when the office has received the service report on the Rule directed to be issued against the Superintendent of Police, Munger. In the meantime, the court below shall proceed with its own schedule of trial as regards the Sessions Trial No. 637 of 2008 pending before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger and send a compliance report on the contents of the present order.