Imtiyaz Murtaza, Amar Saran - (1.) WE have heard learned A.G.A. and Sri D. K. Singh, Joint Registrar (Inspections), High Court, Allahabad.
(2.) AN application supported by an affidavit of Sri S. C. Misra, Spl. Secretary (Home), Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, dated 13.8.2007, has been filed praying for 6 weeks' further time for giving detailed information with regard to withdrawal of prosecutions against the elected public representatives who were elected in the recent assembly elections, as directed by our order dated 16.7.2007, and also about their criminal antecedents. We think that said time of 6 weeks sought is excessive, and we grant only four weeks time to the State Government to furnish the information sought by our earlier order dated 16.7.2007. A compliance report prepared by the Joint Registrar (Inspections), Sri D. K. Singh, has also been received, which mentions that in furtherance of our order dated 16.7.2007, the Registry has received copies of judgments from 27 judgeships between 30.7.2007 and 2.8.2007. As copies of the judgments were to be received from 11 districts, letters were sent to these judgeships on 2.8.2007, but in spite of the aforesaid reminders, copies of the requisite judgments/orders have not been received from six judgeships, namely, Basti, Budaun, Hathras, Kush Nagar, Rampur and Sant Kabir Nagar. Again a reminder be sent to these judgeships with a warning that if there is any further delay in complying with the orders of this Court, we will have no option but to refer this lapse of the concerned district and trial Judges to their Administrative Judges and Administrative Committee of the High Court for appropriate action. So far as the matter relating to the withdrawal of prosecutions is concerned, copies of the orders have only been received from 2 judgeships viz. Kushi Nagar and Bulandshahr and orders are still awaited from 7 districts for which letters have been sent to those districts. We hope that by the next date of listing the orders regarding withdrawals of prosecutions shall be received from the remaining 7 districts also.
(3.) SO far as getting the cases listed wherein the trials have been stayed in cases against the public representatives by this Court, it is informed by the Joint Registrar (Listing) that the said cases have been directed to be listed before concerned Benches of this Court and dates have been fixed in those cases. We hope that the said cases shall be disposed of expeditiously. In case the said cases involving public representatives are not being taken up by the concerned Benches, because of excess of work or any other reason, the Hon'ble Chief Justice may be requested to assign the said cases to a particular Bench if possible, for expeditious disposal of the matters. An alarming state of affairs has been revealed on a perusal of the judgments which have been sent by the trial courts in the matters of the public representatives. Out of the 66 judgments which have been received so far, as many as 65 cases have ended in acquittals. Very few of these acquittals relate to cases where the politician was involved for participating in a political demonstration or cases of electoral or political rivalries. The cases where he has been acquitted are murders, cases of robbery, dacoity, land grabbing, abductions, extortions, crimes where grievous or simple injuries have been caused to the victims, intimidation and violence against members of Scheduled Castes. In many cases the accused are involved in repeated offences, and it appears that the political career has been chosen as a passport by persons with criminal antecedents to forcibly obtain an amnesty for their crimes, and perhaps to continue their career of crime with impunity, with the help of cronies and henchmen, and with the belief, which is sadly being confirmed in practice, that the law cannot touch them now. The large majority of cases have been acquitted because the witnesses appear to have been coerced to turn hostile. It seems that the problem of hostile witnesses has become a cancer which has afflicted our legal system, and appears to be virtually all-pervasive in the case of politically influential accused. In this otherwise bleak and dark scenario only in a solitary case, S.T. No. 458B of 2000, Sri Nalin Kumar Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Fatehpur, who we will have to rate as an outstanding officer, has shown the integrity and courage to record a conviction of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Section 364, I.P.C. and to 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under Section 323, I.P.C. against the politically powerful accused Raju alias Raj Narain and others even when some of the abductees who had initially nominated the accused, had later turned hostile for obvious reasons but who were medically examined for their injuries after being recovered which corroborated the fact of their abductions, by relying on the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court that it is possible to record a conviction by relying on that part of the testimony of a hostile witness, which appears believable and which is corroborated by circumstances. The same accused has however succeeded in securing acquittals from other Courts in three other cases in which he was involved, on merit or on account of the witnesses turning hostile.;