ORDER
S.B. Sanyal, J.
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a Divisional Forest Officer. This case presents a very gloomy picture as to how administration of criminal justice is being obstructed and impeded by gross negligence and wilful indifference of the Officer in charge of Sahebganj Police Station as well as the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj in discharging their official duties and responsibilities enjoined to their office.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner Under Sections 384 and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Sahebganj Police Station, bearing Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 0078 of 1984 (G.R. Case No. 156 of 1984), at the instance of the Munshi of Rajesh Industries, Madhepura. It is alleged that when the truck belonging to the said firm was moving with woods, it was stopped by the staff of the Forest Department who demanded papers for removal of the woods from the forest. The staff being not satisfied with the removal of the wood from the forest, directed the truck to proceed to Sahebganj along with the Munshi, the informant of this case. It is said that thereafter a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was demanded by the jeep driver. The truck was brought to the residence of the Divisional Forest Officer. The jeep driver thereafter met the petitioner and taking the informant ten steps away asked for Rs. 1,000/- for the release of the truck. On this information the present case has been launched.
3. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the Forest Guard lodged a first information report prior to the institution of this case, which was registered as Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 007 of 1984, for illegal removal of the woods by the informant of this case and the trucks were taken to the police station. A case was instituted by the Forest Department Under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the truck. In the instant case, the jeep driver of the Forest Department was arrested but was released on bail on 12-4-1984. It is further said that the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Forest Service, had some difference with the Superintendent of Police posted at Sahebganj and because of this difference, in order to humiliate the petitioner who is a responsible public officer, this case has been instituted.
4. On 8-5-1984 case diary was called for by this Court and the application for anticipatory bail was ordered to be listed for admission on 21-5-84 along with the case diary. Letter for the same was issued by the Court on 9-5-84. On 21-5-84 the case diary having not been received, a reminder was again sent by the Court on 25-5-84. The case was ordered to be listed for admission on 5-7-84. Reminder was again issued at the instance of the Court on 16-7-84 and in this way the case kept on being listed from time to time and reminders were also being issued on 26-7-84 and 9-8-84 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and by the order of the Court to the Sessions Judge, Dumka, on 4-9-84 and 22-11-84. The case diary still having not been received, on 13-12-84 explanation was called for from the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge regarding its non-receipt. On 8-1-85 the Deputy Registrar of this Court was asked to write both to the Sessions Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in this regard and obtain their explanation in the matter. All these orders and reminders were not administrative action of the High Court but were judicial orders. Explanations of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge were received by this Court which are at flags A and B, wherefrom it appears that they had made all efforts by writing to the Superintendent of Police and Officer Incharge of Sahebganj Police Station for obtaining the case diary, but alas, their efforts did not bear any fruit and was not even responded. The learned Sessions Judge in his explanation further states that copies of the letters had also been issued to the D.I.G., Dumka, for necessary action. Carbon copy of the case diary was ultimately received after nine months’ efforts by the High Court and the lower court.
5. After having perused the case diary and having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I think it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, I, therefore, direct that in the event of his arrest or surrender in Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 0078 of 1984, being G.R. Case No. 156 of 1984, the petitioner shall be released by the arresting officer or the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 500/- with two sureties of the like amount each to his satisfaction.
6. Before parting with this order I must observe that the Police Department is largely responsible for wasting Court’s valuable time in disposal of criminal cases. It has come to the notice of the Court that hundreds and thousands of criminal cases remain pending for years in the courts for non-co-operation and indifference of the Police authorities. To notice a few of the causes in this regard I may enumerate (1) lack of availability of carbon copy of the case diary, (2) failure of the Investigating Officers to present themselves for their examination in court, (3) non-service of warrant of arrest by the concerned police stations, (4) non-supply of police papers to the accused which is a statutory requirement, etc. I had the occasion to find that in one court of a Magistrate alone out of about 1800 criminal cases 800 were such where the same could not be disposed of and had to remain pending for years only for the examination of one witness the Investigating Officer.
Government doctors have also not lagged behind in their competition of inefficiency. Hundreds of cases are pending in the courts below where the courts have to wait for years for the doctors to come and prove the injury reports/post-mortem reports, leading to the mounting of pendency at the cost of the alleged criminals languishing in jail.
7. Because of the indifference, non-co-operation and inefficiency on the part of the Government Departments connected with the administration of criminal cases, this High Court on its administrative side, has taken a decision to close all the criminal cases pending in the courts below all over the State, wherein the Investigating Officers or the Medical Officers do not make themselves available for evidence, after waiting for two years. Ironically, this manifests the frustration of Court in this regard and apparently shows failure of the administration of criminal justice. In my opinion, this is bound to cause disappointment to law abiding citizens and losing their faith in the administration of criminal justice. If the existing structure of the Police Department as well as the Health Department is unable to cope with the responsibilities of their office and co-operate themselves with courts in maintaining the rule of law, it is high time that the Government should find out ways and means for their effective existence and service to the rule of law, which is the very fabric of our democratic framework. Co-operation of the various wings of the Government is a must and courts alone cannot function and uphold the rule of law with unco-operative organs of the Government. Maintenance of law and order to which the Police Department is wedded, does not end by initiation of cases or by taking people into custody. The responsibilities enjoined to their office ceases only after pronouncement of the court’s verdict on such action.
Those officers who undertake investigation and are witnesses in court proceedings. including the medical officers and the officers enjoined with the duty to implement court orders, must do so within a reasonable time so that the public may not be harassed on their account unnecessarily and valuable time of the courts is not wasted. Speedy disposal of cases is the cry of the time and every authority connected with administration of criminal justice must realise its respective responsibility and duties. Courts can no more take these matters lightly.
8. If what has been reported by the Sessions Judge, Dumka, is correct, our subordinate judiciary cannot function and there will be an end of the rule of law. The Sessions Judge, Dumka and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj, and four the matter of that, all the subordinate courts are directed that if in future they come across such lapses on the part of the Superintendent of Police or the Officer in charge of Police Stations, they should immediately report the matter to this Court so that appropriate action may be taken against such officers. I observe in unequivocal term that if in future such lapses come to my notice, I will be compelled to take stern measure for upholding the rule of law irrespective of the status and position of the concerned officers. I need not remind the concerned authorities the saying of Upanishad.
Law is the king of kings, far more powerful than the king. Nothing can be mightier than law by whose strength weak may prevail over the strong.
They should bear in mind that the Judicial Department touches everybody’s life and happiness and the life and happiness of the country, and protects everybody from unlawful encroachment
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, Dumka and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj.
Apart from them, let copies of this order be also forwarded to the (1) Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, (2) Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, (3) the D.I.G., Dumka, (4) the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, and (5) the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home, New Delhi, with a view to bring to their notice the state of affairs prevailing in the State, leading to delay and impediment in the administration of criminal justice and the frustration in this regard, so that remedial steps can be taken to bring about improvement and check deterioration thereof, and also to find out modalities if the existing structure of the concerned department is unable to handle tasks connected with the administration of criminal justice.