1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PIL NO. 2 OF 2007 Shailesh Gandhi ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr.R.P.Behre Advocate appointed as amicus curiae Ms.P.H.Kantharia APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 9th APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1 One Shailesh Gandhi residing at B-2, Gokul Apartment, Near Asha Parekh Hospital, Potdar Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054 addressed application dated 13th February, 2006 to the Information Officer, Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State under the Right to Information Act. In that application, he sought information in respect of undertrial prisoners who are not convicted and sentenced in the 2 current year and who have been languishing in prisons for more than three years. That letter was replied by the Legal Officer cum Information Officer, Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune vide his letter dated 3rd April, 2006. The Legal Officer stated that Information Officers have been appointed in all the prisons in Maharashtra and it was therefore, necessary for Mr.Gandhi to seek information from all prisons. However, information sought by Mr.Gandhi which had been received from the prisons, was forwarded to him along with the said letter. The Legal Officer stated in his letter that information, had however, not been received from the Information Officers appointed at the Vardha District Prison and from the Superintendent, Mumbai Central prison. The said report was treated as Public Interest Litigation by this Court. 2 This Court vide order dated 6th February, 2008 directed the State to provide information of all undertrial prisoners in the State of Maharashtra, jail-wise as well as Court-wise. Learned counsel Mr.Behere was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, statements were submitted by the Superintendent of Bombay Central Prison, Mumbai. This Court in its order dated 9th July, 2008 observed that there are 3 persons who are in jail from 1993. They are accused of the offence under TADA. Normally their trial should have been completed in 15 years. This Court further observed that certain cases are pending for more than four years. They are under the provisions of Sections 302, 307, 398, 387 etc. of the IPC. The Designated Court was directed to submit report to this Court within two weeks. 3 On 12th August, 2009, the State was given direction to provide a specific data with regard to the undertrial prisoners languishing in various jails in the State of Maharashtra as on 31st July, 2009. 4 It appears that a statement was submitted by the State to this Court. The order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by this Court indicates that the Court noticed the total number of prisoners whose cases are pending as undertrial prisoners and who are in different jails for more than three years, was 554 and out of those prisoners, trial of 475 prisoners was pending for more than three years but for less than five years. The Court noted that the trial of 63 prisoners is pending for more than five years but less than seven years and 13 prisoners are facing trial for the last seven years and more and three prisoners are facing trial for more than ten years. A direction was given to the learned 4 APP to file appropriate statement indicating the status of undertrial prisoners. A direction was given to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State to issue circular to his officers directing them to ensure that the said prisoners, as and when required, are produced before the concerned Courts on the dates on which the hearing of their cases are fixed and the excuse that escort was not available would not be entertained. The Court directed that the necessary steps be taken to ensure that the said prisoners are brought from the jail to the Court on the dates fixed for hearing. Witnesses were also directed to be kept present on the dates of hearing of the cases. 5 On 27th November, 2009, this Court expressed anguish as to why though specific directions were given to the Registrar General to issue circulars to all the concerned Magistrates and Sessions Judges in the State to expeditiously decide the pending cases of 554 prisoners by giving them preference, there is no response from the Registrar General. Learned APP was directed to write a letter to the Registrar General and seek necessary instructions and file the same on record. 6 On 16th December, 2009 the learned APP placed before the Court the necessary statement along with its annexures and 5 communication from the Registrar (Judicial) to all the concerned Magistrates and Sessions Judges in the State alongwith the relevant data. This Court observed that the primary responsibility rests with the State in making available necessary infrastructure so that trial can be taken up by the concerned Magistrates and Sessions Judges on priority basis. On 23rd September, 2009, learned APP submitted a statement indicating the status of undertrial prisoners and their cases. The Court gave a further direction to her to file a statement showing the total number of undertrial prisoners whose cases are pending for less than three years. The Registrar General was directed to issue circular to all the Magistrates and Sessions Judges in the State to expeditiously decide the pending cases of 554 prisoners. The Director General of Police, Maharashtra State was also directed to issue circular through his officers giving necessary directions to ensure that cases of undertrial prisoners are expeditiously disposed of. The above orders reflect the anxiety of this Court to know the status of the undertrial prisoners who are languishing in jail without trial. This Court was obviously of the view that the pending cases should be disposed of expeditiously. 7 In this connection, we may note that letter dated 14th January, 2010 was addressed by Minister of Law and Justice, Government of 6 India to the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice stating that the National Mission for justice delivery and legal reforms has been approved by the Union Cabinet. One of the important programmes of this mission is to reduce the number of undertrial cases and to ease congestion in jails. The said letter states that the Mission can be launched on 26th January, 2010 and can be completed by 31st July, 2010 to reduce 2/3rd of the undertrial cases by 31st July, 2010. This Court, therefore, decided to implement the Mission Programme in the State of Maharashtra and Goa. A Task Force Committee consisting of three Judges, has been constituted to look into the matter. The Member Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services is nominated as Member Secretary for the Task Force Committee. To implement and monitor effectively the work of National Mission and to have co-ordination with the Task Force Committee, Supervisory Committees are constituted for Mumbai, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa comprising two Judges of this Court. Registrar (Judicial) is the Co-ordinator. The State Government has also nominated Nodal Officers from the concerned Department to ensure effective co-ordination. The Task Force Committee has had several meetings. In one of the meetings, it is unanimously resolved that the Member Secretary shall issue letters afresh to the concerned Principal District Judge to take steps to expedite and give top priority to the court 7 matters pertaining to undertrial prisoners in the courts situated within their jurisdiction. 8 The work of National Mission started in the State on 26th January, 2010 and directions were given that petty cases, compoundable cases and cases where the accused are entitled to bail under Section 436 and Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. shall be taken up for disposal and for consideration of bail on special sittings of Courts on 26th January, 2010. Member Secretary of the Task Force Committee has supplied certain data to us. As per the information received from the Courts which held special sittings in all the District and Taluka places in Maharashtra and Goa, total number of 464 undertrial prisoners in Maharashtra and 2 in Goa were released on bail on 26th January, 2010. 9 Periodically Member Secretary of the Task Force Committee has collected information from all districts in Maharashtra, Goa, Daman and Diu regarding release of undertrials. We have before us, the data provided by the Member Secretary. Statement showing number of undertrials before 26th January, 2010 as on 1st March, 2010 i.e. after introduction of National Mission, has been submitted to us. It reads as under: 8 Sr. No . State Total Number of undertrials as on 26.1.2010 Total Number of undertrials released on 26.1.2010 Total number of undertrials released till 28.2.2010 Total number of undertrials as on 1.3.2010 1 Maharashtra 14459 464 3304 10691 2 Goa 135 02 18 115 3 Diu Daman, Dadra & Nagar Haveli 89 00 16 73 TOTAL 14683 466 3338 10813 10 We are satisfied that efforts are being made to achieve the target set by the National System for justice delivery and legal reforms. There is indeed, a machinery in place to ensure that constant monitoring is done and the progress is not thwarted by inertia or indolence. So far as the present project of National System for justice delay and legal reforms is concerned target set by it is to be achieved by 31st July, 2010. However, we feel that the same effort and monitoring should continue even thereafter, otherwise again a huge pendency of cases will be created. We hope and trust that this process will be continued even after 31st July, 2010 and there will be a machinery in place to do the monitoring. 9 11 Mr. Behere made a grievance that witness summonses are not being served and that results in delay in trials. In this connection, we may usefully refer to an order passed by the Bench presided over by Justice Bilal Nazki in Writ Petition No.564 of 1995 on 23.04.2008. After observing that there are number of cases in which non-bailable warrants are pending for more than one year, the Bench directed the Government to look into the matter and frame a policy. The Bench further directed that the Sessions Judge of each district shall have a meeting every month with the respective concerned District Superintendent of Police / Police Commissioner and monitor the execution of warrants in their respective districts. The Bench further directed that after every such meeting, every District Judge / Sessions Judge shall submit a report to this Court. We are informed that accordingly, meetings are being held and reports are being submitted. Service of witness summons is also of prime importance. In our opinion, in the meetings held by the District Judges / Sessions Judges with the District Superintendent of Police / Police Commissioner pursuant to order dated 23.4.2008 passed by this Court, the issue of witness summons should also be discussed and an appropriate strategy should be evolved to ensure that witness summonses are served in time. 10 12 Pendency of N.D.P.S. cases is also a cause for concern. The Registrar (Inspection) informs us that as on 1.1.2010 in Bombay 947 N.D.P.S. cases were pending and in rest of Maharashtra 1608 N.D.P.S. cases were pending. The Registrar (Inspection) has supplied to us a copy of the minutes of the meetings presided over by the then Chief Justice Shri. Swatanter Kumar (presently Judge of the Supreme Court) and the Acting Chief Justice of this Court Shri. J.N. Patel. These meetings were held to discuss the issue relating to pendency of N.D.P.S. cases in Mumbai. We notice that several instructions have been issued to the State, to the prosecutors, to the investigating agencies and to the Forensic Laboratories to take steps to achieve speedy disposal of N.D.P.S. cases. 13 We are of the opinion that issue relating to pendency of N.D.P.S. cases in other districts of Maharashtra should also be discussed in the meetings which would be held in future to discuss pendency of N.D.P.S. cases in Mumbai so that appropriate directions can be issued in that behalf. 14 Mr. Behere submitted that undertrial prisoners are very often not produced before the Courts on the dates of hearing on the ground 11 that escort is not available. If this is true it is distressing. The police must ensure that the prisoners are taken to the Court on time. System of Video Conferencing may also be used wherever possible. 15 Mr. Behere further submitted that quite often the police personnel are deputed for security bandobast for VVIPs and VIPs which results in reduction of police staff required for the purpose of taking the prisoners to the Court. We feel that such a situation should be avoided because production of prisoners before the Court on time is a prime obligation of the State. 16 The Central Government has taken a huge step forward to achieve reduction of cases of undertrials who are languishing in jails. In our opinion, if the State Government ensures that following requirements which are in addition to the requirements earlier stated in various orders of this Court passed in this case are complied with, the target can be achieved. 1) State should ensure that undertrial prisoners are produced before the Courts; 12 2) Video conferencing-infrastructure should be provided to the Courts and Jails. 3) Sufficient number of competent Public Prosecutors/A.P.Ps. should be provided to the Courts. 4) Steps should be taken to ensure that process of the Court is served so that witnesses would remain present on given dates; 5) Prosecution witnesses should be provided sufficient protection so as to encourage them to attend the Court boldly and fearlessly. 6) Necessary legal assistance should be promptly provided to the undertrial prisoners. 7) The delay in getting C.A. Reports or other expert reports should be avoided. 17 Having given anxious consideration to the issues involved in this case and having perused the relevant record, we are of the opinion that all efforts are being made to reduce pendency of cases of 13 undertrials who are in jail. Necessary steps are taken to ensure speedy disposal of cases. 18 In view of the above, we feel that the present petition has worked itself out. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]