Court on its own motion vs U.T., Chandigarh and others

Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.—This PIL has been registered on the basis of a note dated 28.7.2011 of the then learned Administrative Judge, Chandigarh Division with regard to the investigations remaining pending beyond 60/90 days, as the case may be, resulting in a situation where the accused in such cases are still languishing in jails. A list of 58 cases where investigations have not been completed, as found by the learned Judge in the course of inspection, has been enclosed to the note dated 28.7.2011. On the basis of the said note, the suo motu petition has been registered and the notices were issued to the U.T, Chandigarh and the States of Haryana & Punjab.

Responding to the notices issued, the UT, Chandigarh has filed an affidavit through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central, UT, Chandigarh, stating that in all the 58 cases mentioned in the note of the learned Judge, investigations have since been completed and the challans have been presented in the respective courts. Therefore, according to the UT Administration there is no case "as per the list" in which the accused is in custody and challan not presented in Court within a period of 60/90 days, as the case may be.

The information furnished by the UT Administration is in respect of those 58 cases which were already identified by the learned Judge in the course of the inspection. What the Court expected the UT Administration to do is not only to verify the said 58 cases but also ascertain whether there are other cases where investigation has not been completed within the period of 60/90 days. However, we do not wish to keep this matter pending on the aforesaid count as the same is capable of being resolved by a direction to the UT Administration to ensure that, as far as practicable, investigation in no case shall remain incomplete on the expiry of 60/90 days, as the case may be.

In so far, the State of Haryana is concerned, an affidavit of Sh.Sharad Kumar, IPS, Director General of Police, Crime, Haryana has been filed, which indicates that some positive steps have been taken by the State to ensure completion of investigation within the earliest possible time. The State of Haryana has also given particulars of the cases where investigations are pending beyond the period of 60/90 days and the reasons for the delay and also whether the accused in such cases are in custody or on bail.

We have perused the said list enclosed as Annexure R-1 and we find that the number of such cases in the year 2009 is 4; in the year 2010 is 9 and in the year 2011 is 5. According to the State, in almost all such cases, except one, bail has been granted to the accused.

In so far as the State of Punjab is concerned, the position is somewhat different. A two paragraph affidavit, alongwith some charts running into 181 pages, has been filed by Mr. B.K.Garg, Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab on 26.3.2012 laying information before the Court with regard to Sessions cases in which the accused are in custody beyond two years and Magistrate triable cases where accused are in custody beyond 6 months. We express our anguish in putting on record that the above is not the information sought for by the Court. However, we do not wish to dilate on the aforesaid aspect of the matter, inasmuch, as from the papers placed before us, it has been sought to be explained to us that in the State of Punjab, the number of cases where investigations have not been completed within 60/90 days is only 8 and particulars of such cases are included in the materials placed before the Court. If the above is the position and we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the same we do not see any reason to keep this PIL pending. The State of Punjab is directed to investigate all the 8 cases or any other case where investigations has not been completed within 60/90 days, and ensure early completion of such investigation. The suo motu writ petition (PIL) shall stand disposed of, in terms of the above directions and observations.