IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.32406 of 2008
PREM UPADHAYAY @ PREM SHANKAR UPADHAYAY
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
35. 27.9.2010 While hearing the prayer for bail of the petitioner
Prem Upadhyay alias Prem Shankar Upadhyay on 11.11.2008, I
had some suspicion about the genuineness of the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory.. I dismissed the prayer for bail and
directed the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar to take the issue of
some anomalies in the report as indicated by that order with the
Superintendent of Police, Buxar so that re-sampling was done of
the seized narcotic substance for being forwarded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory for its examination. I issued a direction to
the petitioner named above, who was in custody in Buxar
Industrial Area P.S.Case No. 53 of 2007, to renew his prayer for
bail after the fresh report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was
received.
It appears that the sampling was redone and a fresh
report was received by the Court, as may appear from order
dated 26.11.2008. As such, I directed that the Photostat copy of
the Forensic Science Laboratory’s report which had been placed
as Annexure-3 to this petition, about which I had a doubt of
being forged and fabricated record, be sent to the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and seek his views on the
correctness of the opinion of the Court. These facts were
recorded by me in order no. 6 dated 26.11.2008.
2
On order no. 6 dated 26.11.2008, the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, submitted a report along
with a copy of chemical analysis report which was Annexure-A
to his report which indicated that Annexure-3 to the present
petition was forged and fabricated and, as such, a direction was
issued to the Registrar General of the Court on 23.12.2008 to
hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr. P.C. and place the report
before me on this petition for further orders. It is for about two
years now, that the inquiry is pending.
From perusal of different orders passed by the
Registrar General of the Court, mainly by the present Registrar
General, namely, Sri Bidhubhushan Pathak, it is indicated that
some Advocates were involved in the whole plot who could be
perpetrating the offence upon this Court. As such, notices were
issued to them. But, what is the most surprising aspect of the
inquiry is that adjournments have been granted in the inquiry by
the Registrar General unnecessarily and on undue grounds. It
appears that the adjournments were being granted with some
purpose which appears to shield the culprits who were playing
fraud upon this Court by placing a forged and fabricated record
for snatching an order for bail in favour of a drug peddler.
Adjournments of a month in minimum or even for two months
appear granted for no reasons.
After perusing different orders passed by the
Registrar general, I am having a definite opinion that he is either
3
in connivance with the Advocates in order to protecting them
and thereby not allowing their misdeeds which are definitely
commission of serious offences being brought for examination
by a court of law or he is influenced by some external elements,
one of whom, may be the accused and the petitioner in the
present case.
In the matter of such urgency and importance, it
was desirable that the Registrar General of the Court ought to
have understood the implications of the directions of this Court
and ought to have acted with utmost expediency. The lethargy
and purposive ignorance of the Registrar General could be
illustrated by the fact that on 25.8.2010 the inquiry was
adjourned to 17.9.2010 but there is no record of any order dated
17.9.2010 as to what happened on that date and what progress
was made in the inquiry and ultimately to what date the case was
next adjourned. That particular order dated 25.8.2010 indicates
that some records were required which had been sent for in
view of the affidavit dated 19.7.2010 and those had not been
received from the C.J.M.,Buxar, But, the marginal notes of the
office dated 24.8.2010, i.e., a day earlier to 25.8.2010, indicates
that records had already been received. This clearly illustrates
the attitude of the Registrar General and appears proving that he
is in connivance with the persons, may be the accused also who
is accused to be a drug-peddler, in shielding them. This is a quite
disturbing and serious.
4
Let the Registrar General of the Court be directed
to conclude the inquiry in thirty days’ time from today.
Considering the seriousness of the act of the
Registrar General and his purposive act of going slow with the
inquiry so as to shielding the real culprits, let the matter be
placed on the administrative side of the Court also.
Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)