- (1.) R. K. Dash, J. Justice is the most precious concern of mankind. To achieve it person wronged approaches the Court established by law. He expects the wrong to be redressed within reasonable time and with minimum expense. But if judicial process becomes an instrument of oppression and makes a litigant run for justice for years' together, it will affect people's faith in the efficacy of law and ultimately rule of law will be a casualty. Needless to say, various laws prevailing in our country most of which are borrowed from British have become sterile and on account of cumbersome procedure, they have not been able to subvert injustice. For the poor to approach the law Court to vindicate their rights violated by the rich and influential has almost become impossible. It is only the rich who are benefited by the prevailing laws. In this context, it is apposite to refer to what Justice Brennan of the Supreme Court of America once said". . . . . when only the rich can enjoy the law, as doubtful luxury, and the poor who need it most, cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach the threat to the contained existence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, because democracy's very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizen shall believe in and benefit its impartiality and fairness. "
(2.) HARDENED criminals, hoodlums, rubbers and bootleggers committing heinous crimes go scot-free. Our prevailing laws have not been effective to punish them. Legal statisticians say that only 3% cases end in conviction. For this, entire blame should not go to the prosecuting agency only. Judiciary has to share it mainly because of delayed adjudicatory process. It is a known fact, a criminal case takes more than a decade for adjudication in the Court of first instance. True it is, our subordinate Courts are heavily burdened with large number of cases and there are mounting arrears. To over come this problem, the apathy of the Government in not increasing the strength of the officers and providing necessary infrastructure cannot be countenanced. At the same time judiciary cannot be absolved of the liability to discharge its statutory function in dispensing justice within reasonable time. On account of slow movement of the justice delivery system, year old cases are lying in racks and no endeavour is make to finally being them to a close. Litigants run to the Courts for years together and at last give up hope to get justice. Unhesitatingly adjournments are allowed on flimsy grounds and presiding officer lacks sincerity to decide year old cases on priority basis. Frequent lawyers' strike is also one of the causes for delayed trial. There is hardly any reason for the lawyers to give strike call. Professional ethics are thrown to winds. It is seen that in some districts subordinate Courts worked for about three months in a year and the remaining months the Courts did not function on account of lawyers' strike. There is absolutely no feeling for the litigants for whose benefit the judicial system has been created and is existing. It should not be forgotten that without active assistance of the Bar, dispensation of justice would be almost impossible. Responsibility of both Bench and Bar is joint and inseparable and if they lack sincerity in fulfilling the desire of the litigants, judicial system, on which the people have implicit faith and confidence will collapse leading to social chaos. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioners, accused of having committed robbery and other allied offences faced criminal proceeding, final hearing of which did not commence even after twelve years of its initiation. So feeling tired in attending the Court for all these years, they filed the present case seeking Court's intervention and prayed for quashing the proceeding in exercise of inherent power. Taking note of the averments made in the petition, the Court directed the District Judge, Moradabad to obtain a report from the judicial officer in session of the case as to why the proceeding was kept pending for long years. He was also directed to indicate in the report as to whether he has been making periodical inspection of the subornate Courts and whether in the case on hand any direction was given to the concerned Magistrate for taking up expeditious hearing. Pursuant thereto, the District Judge submitted report, a reading of which reveals alarming state of affairs in the subordinate Courts. The incident happened in 1987 within the jurisdiction of Gajaraula Police Station the police on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet on 20th August, 1990. Therefore, the Court framed charge and fixed the case to 4th October, 1990 for evidence. On that day and thereafter, not a single witness was examined. The case was adjourned from to time and it continued for twelve years. As the report reveals, on some occasion, the Presiding Officer remained on leave. Besides that, on several dates the Court on mere asking of the A. P. O. to produce the witnesses adjourned the case. On sixteen occasions, the case was adjourned on account of lawyers' strike. When this Court took notice of such negligence and lapses, the Presiding Officer who was in deep slumber became alert. The prosecution also became active and on a single date i. e. 17th May, 2002 three witnesses were produced and examined thereafter the prosecution closed the evidence. On that very day statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and i. e. case was adjourned to 17th May, 2002. Since the Court took serious view of inaction of the trial Court, within two days the whole proceeding came to a close. From this it appears that there is no proper inspection of the subordinate Courts by the concerned District Judge. It need not be emphasized that in order to have effective control over functioning of the subordinate judiciary, inspection of the Courts both by the District Judge and the High Court is a must. To repeat with, the District Judge, Moradabad was directed to apprise of the Court as to whether he periodically inspected the Subordinate Courts. To this, he did not rely anything either in the affirmative or negative. Many cases like the present one have come to my notice where trial is pending for more than a decade. There are large number of year old criminal cases including cases including cases treble by the Court of session pending for trail ranging from five to ten years and more. It is the duty of the concerned District Judge to inspect and give necessary instruction for expeditious disposal of such cases. Besides, he should call a meeting of the judicial officers once in every month and discuss with them about the problems for not deciding the year old cases expeditiously and sort out the problems. He should also fix up a time limit for final adjudication of those cases and obtain report from the presiding officers. If in spite of instruction and advice any officer fails to dispose of the year old cases, he should move the High Court for taking appropriate administrative action against the erring officer. Besides, he should make necessary entry in the Confidential Report (C. R.) of the concerned officer if he finds lack of sincerity in him in taking proper steps to decide such cases. In the case on hand, since hearing has been concluded, as stated earlier. I feel not inclined to quash the proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner.
(3.) IN view of the discussions made the criminal misc. application fails and the same is dismissed. Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the District Judges for compliance. Application dismissed. .;