Delhi High Court
Essang Nyong And Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 92 (2001) DLT 196
Bench: U Mehra, M A Khan
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Aggarwal, DG (Prisons) says that fresh list of 243 cases along with the CRO certificate has been forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for fixing the date. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is present and says that she has not received the clarification as to what type of cases could be included under the definition of petty offences which are to be taken up at jail premises. These Courts were held in pursuance to the letter of the Chief Justice of India dated 29th November, 1999. Para 2 of the said letter is reproduced as under:
"I called for information from National Crime Bureau regarding the number of such under trial prisoners in the country but they are not maintaining statistics in this regard. However, in Central Jail, Delhi only over 9000 prisoners were languishing a as undertrial prisoners on 31st of July, 1999. According to one survey out of the total jail population in the country, undertrial prisoners constitute 73% many of whom involved in petty offences and are ready and wiling to confess their guilt but cannot do so unless a Police report is filed against them in a Court of law. Most of such prisoners are not likely to get severe punishments for the reason that the offences in which they are involved are petty or that they being first offenders may be entitled to the benefit of probation or may be let off by the Courts on payment of fine only. It is neither just nor fair that persons involved in petty offences should suffer incarceration much beyond the ultimate punishment merely on account of the fact that they happen to be poor and underprivileged."
2. The reading of this para clearly indicates in what context the word "petty offences" has been used in this letter.
3. Such cases in which prisoners are languishing in jail for a considerable time and after trial they are not likely to get severe punishment for the reasons that the offences in which they are involved are petty or that they being first offenders may be entitled to the benefit of probation. The petty offences cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense because the question of prisoners languishing in jail would not arise unless, of course, where the accused is granted bail but is unable to avail of it due to his being poor and under privileged. It will defeat the very purpose for which this exercise to be undertaken. In the context, in which they are used in the letter, petty offences will mean (i) minor offences where gravity of the offence is less and the punishment is not going to be very severe; or (ii) the offences in which the prisoners are involved being first offenders may entitled to benefit of probation; or (iii) may be let off by the Courts on payment of fine only.
4. Words" minor offence" have been defined by the Apex Court in the case of "Common Cause", a Registered Society through its Director v. U.O.I.and Ors., I (1996) CCR 180 (SC)=JT 1996(4) SC 701 where the Apex Court observed:
"It is a matter of common experience that i n may cases where the persons are accused of minor offences punishable not more than three years-- or even less -- with or without fine, the proceedings are kept pending for years together".
5. Therefore, the concept of minor offence or petty offences clearly indicates that where the prisoners are languishing in jail for a long period and the punishment is not going to be very severe will be covered by the words minor offence or petty offence.
6. The Magistrates while taking up these cases will have to keep in mind that it is a first offence of the prisoners. It is a minor offence where the punishment is not going to be sever or the facts are such that he can also be let off on probationer on payment of fine. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrates who will hold the sitting in jail shall examined this aspect before taking up these cases for decision. We have been told that in earlier sitting of such Courts cases of minor theft, Excise, Gambling and under Section 25, Arms Act, accident cases and cases under Section 448, IPC i.e. tresspass, the hurt cases and of minor injuries under Section 324, IPC, etc. etc. have been taken up. He may also take help of Section 260, Cr.P.C. which empowers a Magistrate to try cases summarily and the definition of petty offence" as given in Rule 2(3) of Delhi Petty Offences (Trial by Special Metropolitan Magistrates) Rules, 1998 for deciding whether case may be taken up for trial and disposal at jail premises. We think the discretion will be of the Magistrate to see that only those cases are taken up which are minor/petty in nature in the light of the Chief Justice of India dated 29.11.1999 and as explained above.
7. A copy of this order be given dusty to CMM. She has informed that she will now hold the Court on 5th May, 2001.
8. Ms. Mukta Gupta has placed on record the standing order N o. 169 and subsequent certificates issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police pursuance to the letter issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing all the police officials concerned that as per the Punjab Police Rules and High Court Rules at the time of filing the challan, verification of address of accused and previous conviction report from Crime Report Office should also be filed. Copy of the certificate has been provided to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Police Commissioner should give direction to all the SHOs of all the police stations that they should adhere to this direction given in the certificate and comply with the same strictly.
9. Petition stands disposed of.
10. Writ Petition disposed of.
