IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14572 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 24.11.2010. Heard. The report of the office that no report has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Patna about the compliance of the orders passed on 6.10.2010 need not be taken cognizance of inasmuch as the very order was passed directing the officer-in-charge of Phulwarisharif police station to show his causes against the act of contempt, he appeared to have committed by violating the orders on production of witnesses which was issued to him by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.I), Patna in respect of a couple of sessions trial. The Officer has sought unqualified apology for the acts of contempt and has submitted further that in one of the two cases seven witnesses out of nine witnesses have been produced and examined and other witnesses are likely to be produced in the court. It was contended that out of two cases in one case one witness has died, so only one witness is to be produced. Unqualified apology is a simple thing to 2 be placed before the courts for acts of contempt and it is often accepted and the person against whom a notice to show cause has been issued is often allowed to be let off. However, when it comes to the disobedience of the lower court specially when the lower court was requiring an office-in-charge of the police station to produce witnesses then it could not only be a mere judicial order but the impact of the order could be that the court was requiring the officer-in- charge of a particular police station to discharge his duties under Section 170(2)of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court was of-course not referring to that particular provision of the Cr.P.C. but was laying down the law in Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 270 that it is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to remain physically present on day-to-day basis with witnesses for their evidence. It is being regularly found that the trials are being protracted resulting into the unnecessary incarceration of the accused persons and ultimately the lower courts are held responsible for the delayed disposal of the case or longer pendency. The real and true aspect of the fact which is to complying with the legal directions on 3 production of witnesses by the agency of the State and its somewhat in different attitude on it, is often over looked or is often buried in accusing the lower courts for delayed delivery of justice. This court is really disturbed on this unfortunate development which has taken place in last 10-15 years on administration of criminal justice in this State and as such it has taken it very seriously that if a police officer who is ordained to comply with the provisions of particular law, like, Section 170(2)of the Cr.P.C. has to be shown his real place by being put behind the bars if he is found deficient or wanting in complying with that particular provision. There was no necessity for any lower court to issue a direction for production of the witnesses. It would have been voluntary from the officer-in- charges of the police stations of the State as law(i.e. Section 170(2)Cr.P.C.) pre-supposes that he could be deemed to have obtained bonds from witnesses who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to be produced before the courts for their evidence. But they are not only found deeply wanting but are really found taking pleasure indisobeying the courts’ orders which are communicated through various mode of 4 communications as prescribed by the Cr.P.C. A warrant of arrest might be in the form of a piece of paper, which might be bearing the initial of a Judge as also the seal of the court he presides over, but its substance is in the order of the court to be executed by arresting a particular person, the witness, and producing him before a court which has issued that order. If any police officer is found sitting tight over it then he is not only disobeying the orders of the court in the form of the warrant of arrest, but is also creating an impediment in the disposal of a criminal case and as such a judicial proceeding. This offensive act of a police officer of causing impediment in the judicial proceeding may be taken cognizance of by the lower courts against the erring police officer. This is what I want to point out to the whole of the police administration so that they buckle their belts up and fasten the loose ends of their boots so as to bringing the trial on the right track, else, it could be presenting an extreme difficult situation for them when not only this court, but also the lower court may start remanding them to custody for having disobeyed the courts order. Coming to the present show cause I need 5 not act on it. I direct the officer-in-charge to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-I, Patna in a weeks’ time, i.e., by the 2nd of December, 2010 and file a similar apology before him. He is further directed to obtain the list of such cases which might be pending in the Judgeship of Patna which had been investigated into by any officer who could be posted in Phulwarisharif police station and ensure that the witnesses are produced on a day to day basis in every court which has proceeded to try any of the particular cases of that particular list. The Sessions Judge, Patna shall review the progress made in the examination of witnesses. The court below shall consider the apology of the officer and pass an appropriate order on that. As regards notice to show cause issued to the officer-in-charge, it is kept pending as the court below is expected to pass an order and inform this court as to how the present officer- in-charge of Phulwarisharif police station, i.e., Shabir Ahmad has complied with the present order so that this court may again take up the matter. If it finds that the officer is extremely wanting in complying with the orders of this court, the court below shall make a report in four weeks, 6 from today about the compliance by the officer about the orders which have been just dictated in presence of Sri S.K.Mandal, S.C.15. A copy of this order has to be transmitted by the Registry of this Court forthwith to the Director General of Police, Bihar who shall discuss the matter with all concerned and direct all S.P’s. to consider the observations of this court, else this court may be passing orders with very heavy hand so as to putting trials criminal cases on right track. A copy of this order may be made over to Sri Mandal, S.C.15, for information and necessary action. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)