The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Sathish Kumar while allowing a Habeas Corpus Petition remarked that there is a trend of delay in filing of the Final Report after the statutory time limit, therefore directed the Police to file all final reports online. (I Nisha v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors)
The bench noted, "We also find that the final report in this case has been filed on 21.01.2022, i.e., beyond the statutory period of 90 days. In many cases, which we come across, it is found that the delay is attributed by the Police to the non-taking on file the final reports by the respective Judicial Magistrate / Courts and this has led to the accused in several heinous crimes to be enlarged, on statutory bail.
We, therefore, direct the Police in future, to file all final reports On-line and such On-line filing of final reports by the Police, will be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019."
The court even directed that Judicial Magistrates / Criminal Courts shall not return the final reports for such non-enclosure of the reports which are listed out as Nos.(vii) to (x) & (xxix) of Sub Rule 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
Moreover, This direction shall be scrupulously followed by all the Criminal Courts and the Criminal Courts shall also ensure that the final reports are filed On-line and the Director General of Police is required to issue required Circulars to the respective Police Stations to ensure compliance with the above orders.
Facts of the case
The petitioner is the daughter of detenu, namely,Rajapandian, S/o.Pitchandi Thevar, aged about 52 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his proceedings in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 142/2021 dated 14.09.2021 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The petition was filed by the detenu's daughter.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioner submitted that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representations made by the petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay with regard to the same.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He submitted that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "the Detention Order in question was passed on 15.07.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated 31.07.2021 and the same was received on 05.08.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 28.10.2021. Though the representation dated 31.07.2021, was received on 05.08.2021, it was rejected only on 28.10.2021 with the delay of 41 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 22 days. The delay in considering the representation remains unexplained."
The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and Madras High Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan and others (1980) and Sumaiya v. The Secretary to Government (2007) respectively where the courts have clearly established that any inordinate or unexplainable delay on the part of the government, however little the delay might have been, is illegal and is sufficient to set aside the order of detention
The bench allowing the Petition remarked, "In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 41 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl. No.142/2021 dated 14.09.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Rajapandian, S/o.Pitchandi Thevar, aged about 52 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
