Supreme Court of India

Nimeon Sangma & Ors vs Home Secretary, Govt. Of … on 30 April, 1979

Supreme Court of India
Nimeon Sangma & Ors vs Home Secretary, Govt. Of … on 30 April, 1979
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1518, 1979 SCR (3) 785
Author: V Krishnaiyer
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.
           PETITIONER:
NIMEON SANGMA & ORS.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1979

BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:
 1979 AIR 1518		  1979 SCR  (3) 785
 1979 SCC  (1) 700


ACT:
     Administration    of    Justice-Pre-trial	  detention-
Expeditious disposal  of cases	including investigations and
trials-Sections 167,  209 &  309 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.



HEADNOTE:
     In their  petition for  the issue	of a  writ of habeas
corpus, the petitioners alleged illegal detention of a large
number of persons under guise of the judicial process.
^
     HELD :  1. Criminal Justice breaks down at a point when
expeditious  trial  is	not  attempted	while  the  affected
parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code
in Sections  167, 209  and 309 has emphasised the importance
of expeditious	disposal of  cases including  investigations
and trials. [786E]
     2. The  State Government to take a policy decision with
a view	to ensure  that accused persons, too indigent to set
in motion  the judicial process, do not suffer incarceration
silently. [787B]
     3. The  Government will  do well  to  comply  with	 the
spirit of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure especially in the
matter	of   persons  sought  to  be  bound  over  for	good
behaviour, persons  against whom  summons cases	 are pending
and persons  who have  been in	custody for  more  than	 six
months This  will involve  a mass  release from	 jails,	 but
Government has to pay homage in substance and reality to the
provisions of the Constitution and the Code. [787C]
     The Court directed that :-
     (a) The  State do	consent to  release all	 persons who
have been  in custody  for over	 six months and whose trials
have not  commenced or	against whom  charge sheets have not
been laid  excepting in	 those cases  under Sections 302 and
395 I.P.C. [786G]
     (b) The  State shall  complete investigation within two
months in  cases where	charge sheets  have not	 been  laid.
[786H]
     (c) The  Sessions Court concerned should dispose of the
cases where  chargesheets have	been laid and commitment has
been made within six months.
						      [786H]



JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 211
of 1979.

K. Hingorani for the Petitioners.

D. N. Mukherjee for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-This is a petition for the issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention
of a large number of persons under guise of the judicial
process.

786

Even without going into details, we are satisfied that
petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 should be released on their own
bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to
their reporting to the nearest police station once every
fortnight and appearing in court whenever called upon to do
so to take their trial. We direct accordingly.

So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the State in
its affidavit swear that there is no such person in custody
in connection with any case. This matter will be scrutinised
further by the State so that it may satisfy itself that no
one is in custody except under due process of law.

This Court in its earlier order dated March 5, 1979 has
directed the State to file a statement containing
particulars of the under-trial prisoners who have been
confined in Jail for a period of over six months without
their trials having commenced. Further details as to the
ages of such under-trials, the dates from which they were
confined and the offences with which they were charged were
also called for. In the reply statement put in by the
respondent, we find a large number of cases where detention
for considerable periods, without the trial having even
commenced, is being suffered by various persons. Criminal
justice breaks down, at a point when expeditious trial is
not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in
jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in sections 167, 209 and
309 has emphasised the importance of expeditious disposal of
cases including investigations and trials. It is
unfortunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have been
such considerable delay in investigations by the police in
utter disregard of the fact that a citizen has been deprived
of his freedom on the ground that he is accused of an
offence. We do not approve of this course and breach of the
rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this
chaotic state of affairs verging on wholesale breach of
human rights guaranteed under the Constitution especially
under Article 21 as interpreted by this Court.

Even so we do not wish to pass any orders at the moment
until more particulars are brought to our notice. It will
suffice for the present-and counsel for the State assures us
that any direction given by this Court will be promptly
complied with-that we direct the State to consent to release
all persons who have been in custody for over six months and
whose trials have not commenced or against whom charge
sheets have not been laid. But make one exception in cases
where sections 302 and 395, IPC are involved. We direct that
the State shall complete the investigation within two months
from today where charge sheets have not been laid and
further direct the Sessions Court concerned to dispose of
the cases where charge sheets have been laid and commitment
has been made, within six months from today. A report will
be made to
787
this Court at the end of six months from today by the State.
We must emphatically record our view that there has been a
self-condemnation in the statement put in by the State
Government in that in quite a number of cases which are not
of a serious character and even in those which involve
serious offences, investigations have been pending for
nearly two years. There are cases where persons have been in
custody for five years-a situation too ghastly for a
civilised country like ours. We therefore draw the attention
of the State Government to take a policy decision with a
view to ensure that accused persons, too indigent to set in
motion the judicial process, do not suffer incarceration
silently. The Government will do well to comply with the
spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially in the
matter of persons sought to be bound over for good
behaviour, persons against whom summons cases are pending
and persons who have been in custody for more than six
months. Maybe this will involve a mass release from Jails,
but Government has to pay homage in substance and reality to
the provisions of the Constitution and the Code. With these
observations, and directions, we dispose of this petition.

N.V.K.					   Petition disposed
788