STATE Vs. ANANTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued suo motu by this Court on perusal of a letter of the nature of a reference dated March 20, 1972 from the learned Judge, Fourth Tribunal, Alipore. It arises out of case No. 1 of 1970 now pending trial by the said Tribunal. The said letter was written by the learned Judge seeking for appropriate orders or directions from this Court under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) to meet an unprecedented situation created by the disruptive behaviour adopted by some of the accused on trial.

(2.) The aforesaid tribunal was constituted by the State Government under section 3(1) of the Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunals Act) and the aforesaid case No. 1 of 1970 against Ananta Singh and others was distributed to the said Tribunal for trial under section 4(2) of the said Tribunals Act. In the case the prosecution has laid charges under sections 120B, 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and under the Arms Act and the conspiracy involved is of very wide range. It is also not in dispute that the trial is likely to be a protracted one and witnesses more than 400 in number are likely to be examined. On the provisions of the said Tribunals Act procedure to be followed at the trial is that of a warrant case started otherwise than on a police report under Chapter 21 of the Code. The trial started on February 15, 1972 and after two of the accused persons viz. Anil Kumar Dutta and Rupindra Singh Sodhi were granted pardon under section 5(2) of the said Tribunals' Act, 1952 thirty-four persons are on trial. Of these thirty-four persons, twenty-four persons having consented to State defence are being defended by Mr. Amitava Guha, a learned Advocate of this Court. The rest ten persons have refused to avail of the State defence nor are they being defended by any lawyer of their own choice. They have preferred to remain undefended at the trial.

(3.) Right from the beginning some of the accused conducted themselves in such a manner that it has become impossible for the tribunal to conduct any smooth proceeding. On the first day, tribunal was greeted with songs in chorus from the prisoners' dock. On the intervention of the learned Judge the trouble subsided for some time but on February 19, 1972 when the two approvers were brought in for granting pardon some of the prisoners from the clock started shouting and abusing and even threatening them with death. Such was the position again on 232.72 when prosecution witness No. 13 Nihar Ranjan Dutta, an Inspector of Police, was being examined. When the tribunal intervened the learned Judge was abused and threatened. The case was adjourned to the next date but due to constant slogan shouting no business could be conducted by the tribunal even on the next date. Some of the prisoners at the dock started misbehaving in various other manner impairing a fair proceeding at the trial. On 3.3.72 by order No. 154 the learned Judge adjourned the trial till 15.3.72 and called upon the accused persons to give an undertaking that they are prepared to face the trial observing the conditions necessary for a fair trial as laid down by the tribunal in its earlier order dated 2.3.72 either through their lawyer or through the jail authorities. In answer to this requisition, Mr. Amitava Guha filed a petition on 15.3.72 informing the Court that the accused whom he represents would whole-heartedly submit themselves to the trial and would observe all the decorum expected from them. The other ten undefended accused persons, however, failed to give any undertaking whatsoever. But when the trial started there was again shouting of slogans from the prisoner's dock and the tribunal was faced with a situation where no fair trial was possible due to the misbehaviour of some of the prisoners at the dock.