CITIZENS' CAUSE PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that in the State of Jharkhand, in the matter of prosecuting the criminate, the system is not working at all. The vigilant citizens are trying to see that there may be some improvement in the law and order situation in the State of Jharkhand but it appears that the prosecuting persons in the State of Jharkhand are bent upon not to improve the system in any manner. It appears that they are not understanding even the Court's order passed injudicial side affecting not only the law and order situation but heavily burdening the Courts resulting into unnecessary embarrassment for the Courts in passing harsh one after another order. This Court passed several orders and lastly on 26.07.2011 when the State was granted last opportunity to give complete one list stating therein as to when the F.I.Rs. were registered, when prosecution sanction was granted, when investigation was completed and when challan/Final Reports were submitted in the Court in the identified 88 cases and to give reasons for each of the cases for non-completion of the investigation and for non-grant of prosecution sanction. The Court made it very, specific that even if the offences were committed in the area which now are falling in the State of Bihar but criminal cases are pending in the State of Jharkhand, for those matters, the reasons are required to be given for not taking the steps for obtaining the records from the State of Bihar.

(2.) The supplementary affidavit has been filed on 17.06.2011. The affidavit is virtually not an affidavit at all to fulfill the requirements of the order passed by this Court dated 26.07.2011. In the affidavit, it has been stated that 24 case, though not related to Vigilance Bureau but belong to the Special Court (Vigilance), are cases of police stations or different districts and details of these cases have been given in Annexure-B. Then it has been stated that out of 64 cases relating to Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand, 14 cases have been disposed of and details of which have been given in Annexure-C. Out of remaining 50 cases, one case i.e. Vigilance Case No. 3/99 (Special Case No. 2/99) is still lying at Patna and nothing has been stated about what happened to rest bf the 49 cases. However, we perused the annexures submitted along with this affidavit and in Annexure-A, in Sl. Nos. 1 to 14, it has been stated that either challan has been submitted or final reports have been submitted. Then thereafter, there is reference of cases which are starting from the year 1993 and in relevant column it has been mentioned that out of 23 accused, 17 are on bail and matter is pending for arrest of six persons. As stated above, this is a criminal case of the year 1993 having number 20/1993. In another case i.e. No. 19/1993, it has been stated that public servants are the accused and three have gone to Bihar and the efforts are being made for finding out their addresses, obviously since 1993. The another case is case No. 23/1994 wherein the prosecuting agency wants to know whether the accused are dead or alive. In case No. 1/1995, it is mentioned that there are four accused who have been arrested and for three, the sanction for prosecution is awaited. The large number of cases, since last ten years, are pending for obtaining certain records etc. and it has not been disclosed what was the reason for delay as sought by this Court.

(3.) We have given example of few cases only out of the list submitted by none else than the prosecuting officer of the State Government in response to the order passed by this Court on 26.07.2011 in a writ petition filed in the year 2009 wherein an undertaking of the then Advocate General has been recorded in W.P.(PIL) No. 2405 of 2004 stating therein that no matter was pending with the Government for order to be passed requiring sanction and undertaking was given that the Government gives the undertaking that if any request is made for sanction it will be disposed of within eight weeks from the date of receipt of said request. Believing that undertaking, the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 2405 of 2004 was disposed of, in this petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 858 of. 2009, since 15.10.2009, several orders have been passed. In spite of these orders, it appears that the State Prosecuting Wing is not prepared to obey the orders of this Court that amounts to gross contempt of this Court as well as an obstruction in imparting justice and working of the subordinate Courts and putting hurdles in the working of this Court as this Court has to pass several orders in such matters where the duty is of the State and this consumes the time of the Court which is meant for the bonafide litigants and not for correcting the mistakes of the Government and its officers and to see what short of governance is in the matter of imparting justice to the litigants and particularly in the matters where the public money has been taken away by embezzlement etc. by none else than so called public servants.