Nathu @ Paras Ram v State of Rajasthan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha
Dalveer Bhandari
Judgment Date: 2006-10-31
Court Decision / Holding: Directs that when special leave petitions are forwarded through the officer-in-charge of the jail along with a certified copy of the judgment, the petition should be urgently placed before the Court. The first listing should not be delayed. If the translated copy of the records has not been sent, an office note may suffice; and if the records are directed to be called for, they must be translated. It is only in cases where records are required to be called for that the translation is necessary. The Registry is directed to act in terms of this order in future.
Final Disposition: Appeal pending for hearing.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nathu @ Paras Ram

Respondents

State of Rajasthan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shankar Divate

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision deals with a jail petition filed by Nathu @ Paras Ram seeking Special Leave to Appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order. The petition, lodged on 10.06.2004 and accompanied by a certified copy of the High Court judgment, was ultimately placed before the Court on 04.09.2006 after an inquiry by the Registrar (Judicial). The Registrar’s report attributed delay to the Registry’s routine practice of obtaining records from subordinate courts and tribunals, especially when records are in vernacular language. The Court cites Order 21, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, underscoring that while the Registrar may call for documents as necessary for disposal of the petition, this power must be exercised with care and not mechanically. It emphasizes that records forwarded through the jail with a certified judgment should be urgently placed before the Court and that the first listing should not be unduly delayed. If translations of vernacular records have not been sent, an office note may suffice; if the records are directed to be called for, they must be translated. The Bench directs the Registry to adhere to this approach in the future. The ordering ministerial practices aim to protect the prisoner’s fundamental rights by ensuring prompt judicial attention, while balancing procedural efficiency. The appeal remains pending for hearing.

Provisions of Law Cited

Order 21, Rule 8, Supreme Court Rules, 1966Supreme Court Rules, 1964

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Fundamental rights of prisoners

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant, a prisoner, contends that special leave petitions forwarded from jail, along with the certified copy of the High Court judgment, should be urgently placed before the Court and not be delayed due to delays in obtaining translations of vernacular records. The petitioner emphasizes the urgency of timely listing to safeguard his fundamental rights and to ensure that the petition receives prompt consideration by the Court. The record indicates the petition was filed on 10.06.2004 and the matter was placed before the Court only after inquiries into delays.

Contentions of Respondents

Not expressly stated in the document. The judgment notes that records should be called for only when necessary and that translations should be provided if records are summoned; the Court’s directive seeks to balance efficient administration with prisoners’ rights.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## NATHU@ PARAS RAM # _v._ ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN ## OCTOBER 31, 2006 ## [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ .] ## _Supreme Court Rules, 1964:_ _Order 21, Rule 8-Jail petitions-Prompt listing of in CourtSummoning of records from courts below/Tribunal-Held, it does not appear_ C _to be reasonable that in each and every case when the matter is being placed before the Registry, the records would be sent for and when they are in vernacular language, the same would be translated into English-When the special leave petitions are forwarded through the officer-in-charge of the jail along with certified copy of the judgment, the same should urgently be placed before the Court -The first listing of the case should not be delayed-At best an office note be placed that the translated copy of the records has not been sent; and if the records are directed to be called for, the same are required to be translated-It is only in cases where records are required to be called for, the same should be done; as otherwise it may await the order of the Court-Registry is directed to act in terms of this order in future._ E ## CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 004 of ## 2006. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.200I of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 270/1999 and F S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 244/1999. Shankar Divate for the Appellant. The Order of the Court was delivered by G ## **ORDER** Perused the report of the Registrar (Judicial) dated 26.09.2006. The 905 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 906 _r_ . - A special leave petition was filed on I0.06.2004, which was sent by one Nathu @ Parasram, who is in custody. He had sent a copy of the judgment passed by the High Court. The record was, however, put up on 04.09.2006. It is in the aforementioned premise that an inquiry was directed to be conducted. The Registrar (Judicial), in his report, _inter a/ia,_ stated that the B office had sent for the records of the courts below which caused delay. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to Order XX! Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, relevant portion whereof is in the following terms; c D "8. (I) If the petitioner is in jail and is not represented by an advocate on record he may present his petition for special leave to appeal together with the certified copy of the Judgment and any written argument which he may desire to advance to the officer-incharge of the jail, who shall forthwith forward the same to the Registrar of this Court. Upon receipt of the said petition, the Registrar of the Court shall, _whenever necessary_ call, from the proper officer of the Court or the Tribunal appealed from, the relevant documents for determination of the petition for special leave to appeal. E F (2) As soon as all necessary documents are available the Registrar shall, assign an Advocate from a panel of _amicus curiae_ and thereafter place the petition and complete documents for hearing before the Court. The fee of the advocate so engaged shall be Rs.250/- upto the admission stage and a lump sum not exceeding Rs.500/- for the hearing of the appeal arising therefrom, as may be fixed by the Bench hearing the appeal, and in an appropriate case, the Bench hearing the case may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, sanction payment of a lump sum not exceeding Rs.750/-." Rules framed by this Court must be read in consonance with the fundamental rights of the prisoners. A prisoner when sends a petition or an appeal from jail, the same requires immediate attention of this Court. The Court while entertaining a special leave petition having regard to the facts and G circumstances of the case, may suspend his sentence or allow his prayer for bail. Each petition is accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the High Court, which is supplied free of charge to the prisoners. It does not, therefore, appear to be reasonable that in each and every case when the matter is being placed before the Registry, the records would be sent for and when they are H in vernacular language, the same would be translated into English. 907 NA THU @ PARAS RAM _v._ STA TE OF RAJASTHAN The Rule no doubt permits the Registrar to call for documents, but the A same is required to be done only when the same is found to be necessary and not otherwise. Records of the case should not, thus, be called for in a mechanical manner. We, therefore, direct that when the special leave petitions are forwarded through the officer-in-charge of the jail along with certified copy of the judgment, the same should urgently be placed before the Court. The first listing of the case should not be delayed. At best an office note be placed that the translated copy of the records has not been sent; and if the records are directed to be called for, the same are required to be translated. It is only in cases where records are required to be called for, the same should be done; as otherwise it may await the order of the Court. We direct the Registry to act in terms of this order in future. R.P. Appeal pending for hearing.