Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5382 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 2777 (20 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 44

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5382 of 2006

Sandeep Kumar Yadav......................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others....................................Respondents

******

Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri V.S. Mishra, learned Government Advocate.

The Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow is present in Court in compliance of our order dated 17.1.2007. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Lucknow on behalf of the Director General, CBCID.

In our previous orders, we had expressed dismay on the desultory compliance of our earlier orders and the failure/delays in granting sanctions for the prosecution of the accused belonging to the police force and other government servants and in effecting their arrests within the time granted by this Court and the indifferent manner in which the State Government or the concerned departments had been proceedings in the matter. We had also directed that a break-up of pending cases where matter had been referred for sanctions for the period of 5 years and more, 1 to 5 years and less than one year should be furnished to us. We had further directed the CBCID to conclude the investigation and to effect the arrests of the concerned accused persons and to submit a progress report about the conclusion of the investigations and arrests.  

We had observed in our previous order that the circular letters dated 10.1.2007 and 12.1.2007 seem to be a paper compliance with our earlier orders as it was extremely important that public servants, who are involved in offences should be promptly brought to book to restore the faith of the public in governance by the State.

The counter affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Home) mentions that in compliance of the High Court's orders reference has been sent to the Union Home Secretary to accord sanctions of prosecution in 65 matters, which were pending with him. The Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of 17 departments have been asked to dispose of all the pending matters pertaining to sanctions for prosecution. The Law Department has been requested to expedite all the matters pending for legal opinion. The Director General, CBCID has been asked to dispose of the references pending with CBCID. The Chief Secretary has reviewed the pending matters involving sanctions for prosecution and issued details instructions for disposal of the pending cases and the Home Department has issued directives vide its circular dated 5.2.2007 in compliance of the directions of this Court. The SSPs and SPs have been directed to ensure that investigations should not be transferred to CBCID without proper justification to ensure that CBCID is not unnecessarily over-burdened and that the transfer to CBCID is only to be made when the matters are so complex that it would not be possible for the local police to investigate the matter properly; involves matters which are international, inter-state or spreads to more than one zone or commissionaires; impartial investigations by the local police may be hampered due to local conditions and for the people in general, the role of local police has become questionable.

The SSPs and SPs  had also been directed that instead of merely recording ''no objection' to investigation being handed over to the CBCID, the matter should be examined thoroughly in view of the guidelines of the circular letter dated 5.2.2007. Further in counter affidavit, some details of the cases disposed of are mentioned.

However, learned Advocate General states that orders have been passed by the Chief Secretary directing all the Secretaries, DGP, DG, CBCID to dispose of all the pending matters by 31st March, 2007.

As the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director General, CBCID mentions that out of 1918 accused persons, who were wanted, 1316 accused have not been arrested, 356 for more than ten years, 557 for the period between 5 to 10 years, 200 for the period between 3 to 5 years, 145 for the period 1 to 3 years and 58 persons for less than one year. Even after making exceptions for nine cases, where orders staying arrests have been passed by the Courts or where charge sheet has been submitted without arrest or where the department has decided not to file charge sheet against the accused or ordered fresh investigation, even then after investigations 1279 police personnel are still to be arrested. The reason for their non-arrests is that in 977 cases sanctions for prosecution is pending against police personal, in 234 cases against non-police government servants and in 68 cases in spite of efforts, the accused could not be arrested.

So far as investigation is concerned, a chart has been filed showing that on a total of 593 cases investigations are pending on 16.1.2007, which included 215 cases where investigations are pending for more than 5 years, in 166 cases for a period between 1 and 5 years and in 212 cases  the period of less than one year. Between 16.1.2007  to 17.2.2007 investigations have been concluded in 31 cases and, therefore, investigations are still pending in 572 cases. The reason for pendency of the investigation is that in 270 cases sanctions for prosecution are needed, in 128 cases material had been collected, but formalities have to be fulfilled before the charge sheets can be filed and in 164 cases the evidence is still being collected.

This is a disappointing state of affairs and we do not think that there is effective compliance of our orders, but as the learned Advocate General states that the State Government will straightaway bring out a circular directing arrests of the still wanted accused government servants and police personnel on the same lines as it had issued a circular for considering the sanctions for prosecution of accused government servants and it will hold weekly meeting to review the progress of this commitment to this Court, and that in any case there will be complete consideration of all the cases where sanctions are required and arrests will be effected by 31.3.2007, we propose to give a last opportunity to the State Government to comply with the undertaking and our orders.

However, we would like to receive periodical progress reports of compliance with this undertaking/order and consequently we direct that the case may be listed on 12.3.2007.

A copy of this order shall be given to the learned Government Advocate and other parties within 24 hours for compliance.

Dated: 20.2.2007

Ishrat


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.