http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

                                                     [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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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