BRAHAMDEO PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) It is unfortunate that a case in which the first information report was lodged as early as on 15-10-1972 a serious offence of murder, is still pending disposal before the trial Court. It appears that there are eight accused persons named in the report, and out of them seven surrendered before the Court below on 31st, of October, 1972. It is also apparent that the trial was not delayed on account of the eight accused absconding. The police acted with promptness and the charge-sheet was submitted on 7th of March, 1973. This was followed by an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 102 of the Indian Penal Code on the 3rd of April, 1973. The seven accused persons who had surrendered were granted bail on different dates in the year 1974. The matter remained pending and the police documents were not supplied to the accused till November 24, 1980 i. e., seven years and seven months after the order taking cognizance. We may notice that Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enjoins upon the Magistrate the duty to furnish with out delay to the accused, free of cost, a copy of documents mentioned therein, commonly referred to as the police papers. These include the police report, the first information report and also the statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161, Cr. P. C. The Court cannot absolve itself of the responsibility cast upon it by Section 207, Cr. P. C, by blaming the police for not supplying the documents to it. We will presume that once cognizance has been taken, the necessary papers referred to in Section 207, Cr. P. C. are before the Magistrate. He has, therefore, to get copies made and supplied to the accused persons. If any Court takes cognizance of an offence without the police papers being made available to it, it would be an irregular act inviting objection to the taking Of cognizance by the Magistrate. If it is shown in a given case that cognizance has been taken without the prosecution placing before the Magistrate all the documents referred to in Section 207, Cr. P. C. it must be held that cognizance has been taken in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. This would be a serious charge against the Magistrate concerned in the discharge of judicial functions. Since we have come across such instances in a large number of cases, we wish to bring to the notice of all judicial officers concerned, that the duty enjoined on them by Section 207, Cr. P. C. is not a mere formality, but a duty cast with a purpose. Unnecessary adjournments granted for the supply of police papers, reflect on the functioning of the Court, and the Magistrate must be held responsible, if the trial is delayed for non-supply of polices papers.

(3.) Coming to the facts of the instant case an order of commitment was made on 5-6-1981. The charges were framed thereafter on 3rd of March, 1987, i. e., after a lapse of about five years and nine months, which again depicts the failure of the system. We fail to understand why the Court took five years and nine months in framing of the charges after the case had been committed to the court of sessions for trial. The instant writ application was failed on 28 1-1987 and further proceeding was stayed by order dated 13-3-1987.