http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MUKTINARAIN JHA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/01/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR  770            1978 SCR  (2) 602  1978 SCC  (1) 497

ACT: Practice  and Procedure--Communication of orders  passed  in appeal,  revision  reference by the High Court  in  Criminal Cases should be sent without least delay--Criminal Procedure Code (Act II of 1974), 1973, Ss. 371, 388.

HEADNOTE: The  Petitioners’ special leave petition was  dismissed  for want  of surrender certificate as required under Rule  6  of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.  But in fact the petitioners did surrender but the Assistant Sessions  Judge refused  to take them into jail custody for want of  receipt of judgment from the High Court. Allowing  the petition for restoration of the special  leave petition, the Court. Observed :- It  is unfortunate that when High Courts  deliver  judgments confirming  the  conviction and sentence, there  is  a  long delay  in  communicating  the fact  of  affirmation  of  the sentence  to  the trial courts.  A sentence  should  not  be delayed at least after it is confirmed by the High Court but when  this  happens on account of the  indifference  of  the administrative  side  of the High Court  in  the  mechanical process  of  communication to the trial court  it  does  not speak well of the management side of our court system.  [602 H, 603 A]               [The  Court  expressed  its  hope  that   more               business-like procedures in such matters would               be  evolved so that the rule of law would  not               suffer  a  new  shock  on  account  of  messy-               management of judicial business-rectifiable by               a little more promptitude and attention]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1968. Application for restoration of Special Leave Petition. Parmod Swarup for the petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA  IYER,  J.  The  special  leave  petition  had  been

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

dismissed  on  an  earlier occasion on the  score  that  the petitioners had not surrendered to judicial custody which is more  or less a condition precedent to seeking the leave  of this  Court  to file an appeal.   However,  the  petitioners point  out,  in  the present  petition  for  restoration  of S.L.P.,  that  although they had offered  their  person  and surrendered before the, Assistant Sessions Judge, Madhipure, requesting that they be remanded to jail custody, the  court declined  to take them into custody for want of  receipt  of judgment from the High Court.  Prima facie, this appears  to be  true  in  view  of annexure A which is  a  copy  of  the application put into that court. It is unfortunate that when High Courts deliver judgments confirming the conviction  and sentence, there is a long delay in communicating the fact of affirmation of the sentence to the trial courts. 603 A  sentence  should  not be delayer at  least  after  it  is confirmed by the High Court but when this happens on account of  the indifference of the administrative side of the  High Court  in  the mechanical process of  communication  to  the trial  court it speaks badly of the management side  of  our court system.  We wish that more business-like procedures in such  matters were evolved so that the rule of law need  not suffer  a  new  shock  on  account  of  messy-management  of judicial  business rectifiable by a little more  promptitude and attention. These  observations  have  relevance  to  the  present  case because,  long after the judgment of the High Court and  the sentences  offering to surrender, the court’s  sentence  has not started to operate and the S.L.P. in this Court has  had to  be dismissed-things which should not have and could  not have  happened if the High Court’s administrative  side  had been less indifferent. The petition is allowed and the S.L.P. will be posted  three weeks later.   Time   to  surrender  ten  days.    Meanwhile communication  of  this  order,  with  some   administrative celerity,  will  be made both to the High Court and  to  the trial court. (The practice direction is to be reported). S.R.                               Petition allowed. 604