While observing that there is a trend of delay in filing of the Final Report after the statutory time limit, the Madras High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Nisha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. in H.C.P.(MD) No.1498 of 2021 cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 158 that was delivered finally on April 11, 2022, has directed the police to file all final reports on-line. Such on-line filing of final reports by the police, will be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019. The Court further clarified that the mandatory period for filing the final report shall apply even in cases where the accused has already been detained.
Further, the Court also directed that the Judicial Magistrates/Criminal Courts shall not return the final reports for such non-enclosure of the reports which are listed out as Nos.(vii) to (x) and (xxix) of Sub Rule 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The Court directed the Director General of Police to issue required Circulars to respective Police Stations to ensure compliance of the orders. The Court further also directed the registry to place the order before the Chief Justice to enable the Registry to issue appropriate circulars to the criminal courts.
On the face of it, the Bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Sathish Kumar of Madras High Court was considering a case of detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. The petition was filed by the detenu’s daughter.
At the outset, the Bench while mentioning about the prayer states that, “Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the Detention Order passed in M.H.S.Confdl No.142/2021 dated 14.09.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely, the petitioner’s father i.e., Rajapandian, S/o Pitchandi Thevar, aged about 52 years, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.”
To start with, it is first and foremost stated in para 1 of this notable judgment that, “The petitioner is the daughter of detenu, namely, Rajapandian, S/o Pitchandi Thevar, aged about 52 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his proceedings in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 142/2021 dated 14.09.2021 holding him to be a “Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.”
Needless to say, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, “We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.”
On the one hand, the Bench states in para 3 that, “Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representations made by the petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay with regard to the same.”
On the other hand, the Bench then brings out in para 4 that, “The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 5 that, “The Detention Order in question was passed on 15.07.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated 31.07.2021 and the same was received on 05.08.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner’s representation on 28.10.2021. Though the representation dated 31.07.2021, was received on 05.08.2021, it was rejected only on 28.10.2021 with the delay of 41 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 22 days. The delay in considering the representation remains unexplained.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 6 that, “In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.”
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench then notes in para 7 that, “In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.”
Adding clarity, the Bench then holds in para 8 that, “In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.”
Quite glaringly, the Bench then aptly observes in para 9 that, “In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 41 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.”
As we see, the Bench then finds no difficulty in holding very rightly in para 10 that, “In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl. No.142/2021 dated 14.09.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Rajapandian, S/o.Pitchandi Thevar, aged about 52 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.”
Alarmingly, the Bench then also seeks to point out in para 11 that, “We also find that the final report in this case has been filed on 21.01.2022, i.e., beyond the statutory period of 90 days. In many cases, which we come across, it is found that the delay is attributed by the Police to the non-taking on file the final reports by the respective Judicial Magistrate / Courts and this has led to the accused in several heinous crimes to be enlarged, on statutory bail.”
On right lines, the Bench then directs in para 12 that, “We, therefore, direct the Police in future, to file all final reports On-line and such On-line filing of final reports by the Police, will be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019.”
Furthermore, while pooh-poohing the shoddy manner in which police functions, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 13 that, “It is further found that the Police are under the general impression that once the detention order is passed under the Act 14 of 1982, the requirement to file final report within 90 days will not apply. We make it clear that the requirement of filing of charge sheet within the mandatory period will apply even in cases, where the accused have been detained under the Act 14 of 1982.”
While setting the record straight, the Bench then makes it clear in para 14 stating that, “We have also come across the cases, where the final reports are returned by the Judicial Magistrate/Courts on the ground that they are not accompanied by the Viscera Report, Biology Report, Serological Report, Chemical Report and DNA Test Report. Sub Rule 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, makes it clear that the Magistrate of the Courts shall not return the final report on the ground that the above reports are not enclosed along with the final report.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then mandates in para 15 that, “The Judicial Magistrates/Criminal Courts shall not return the final reports for such non-enclosure of the reports which are listed out as Nos.(vii) to (x) & (xxix) of Sub Rule 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. This direction shall be scrupulously followed by all the Criminal Courts and the Criminal Courts shall also ensure that the final reports are filed On-line. The Director General of Police is required to issue required Circulars to the respective Police Stations to ensure compliance with the above orders.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 16 that, “The Registry is directed to place this order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to enable the Registry to issue appropriate Circulars to the Criminal Courts.”
All told, the sum and substance of this noteworthy judgment by Madras High Court is that statutory time limit for filing final reports must be strictly complied with. The Court has also very rightly directed the police to file all final reports online. It merits no reiteration that the same has to be complied with as directed hereinabove. Sanjeev Sirohi,