JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh and G.C. Bharuka, JJ.
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.
4. We find from the facts placed before us that the delay is not on account of any fault of the prosecution, nor is it on account of any fault of the defence. The system has failed to dispense justice, and to a great extent the failure is not so much of the system as of the persons who run the system. We find from the order sheet that on 74-6-1981 the record of the case was received by the Sessions Judge Incharge, who directed the registration of a session case and case being put up for orders. Thereafter by order dated 16-9-1981 the case was transferred to the file of Additional Sessions Judge Sri A. K. Sinha. The record was received by the transferee Court on 3-10-1981, but we find that again by order dated 9-9-1982, the case was transferred to the file of Shri L. N. K. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Patna for disposal. The record was received by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on 16-9-1982. Thereafter, three years and seven months later, an order was passed on 27-4-1986 summoning the accused.
5. We cannot fail to notice the delay of about three years and seven months at this stage solely on account of the fault of the officer of the court concerned. We have noticed that in a large number of” cases from the district of Patna, after the record is received by the court, it is not placed before the court concerned for further directions. Sometimes for six or seven years; Obviously the office of the Court concerned fails to act promptly, and some one in the office’ must be held responsible for such delay. In the instant cast, therefore, we are of the view that after cognizance was taken on 3rd of April, ‘ 1973, there was a delay of seven years and seven months in supply of police papers. This was solely on account of the Courts failure to perform the duty cast upon it by Section 207, Cr. P C. The subsequent delay in the proceeding is also on accounts of failure of the officer concerned in placing the matter before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge for further directions. The delay, therefore, cannot be attributed to the prosecution, but really is on account of the delay inherent in the system itself. We, therefore, direct the Sessions Judge, Patna to bold an inquiry into the matter any report to this Court within two months as to why the Court could not supply the police papers to the accused for such a long period. He will further make a report to this Court fixing responsibility for the delay in putting up the record before the Court concerned for orders after commitment. After fixing responsibility, he will take appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the persons found guilty of dereliction of duty or negligence, etc., as the case may be.
6. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Inspecting Judge of the District of Patna.
7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that murder was committed in broad day light, and if the accused is acquitted even without a trial, it will have a demoralising effect on the law abiding citizens, and their faith in the justice system will be completely shaken. We do not wish to give that impression to the people, and therefore, we direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial and conclude the same within four months from the date on which a copy of this order is communicated to the trial Court. The office will communicate this judgment to the trial court within one week from today.
8. We also direct that a copy of this judgment be circulated to all the district Court in Bihar so that the concerned district Judges may bring this judgment to the notice of all concerned Magistrates and Courts who are required to discharge their duties under Section 207, Cr. P. C. We may also sound a note of caution to the Courts concerned that if we find that the trials are delayed on account of non-supply of police papers to the accused, we shall hold the Court responsible for the delay and the officer concerned guilty of dereliction of duty enjoined by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. This application is disposed of accordingly.