High CourtDivision Bench1979-04-30Petition disposed

NIMEON SANGMA & ORS v. HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS

Case / Petition Number:Writ Petition No. 211 of 1979

Neutral Citation:3 S.C.R. 786 (1979)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. Krishna Iyer
R. S. Pathak
A. D. Koshal
Judgment Date: 1979-04-30
Court Decision / Holding: The Court directed the State to consent to release all persons in custody for over six months where trials have not commenced or charge sheets have not been laid, except for cases under Sections 302 and 395 IPC. It ordered completion of investigations within two months where charge sheets have not been laid and commanded the Sessions Court to dispose of cases where charge sheets have been filed and commitments made within six months, with a report to the Court after six months. The Court released petitioners 3 and 4 on their own bonds to be bound by the trial court’s conditions, and required the State to verify any custody beyond six months. It disposed of the petition and urged policy reforms to align practice with the Constitution and CrPC, stressing the need for expeditious justice and protecting Article 21 rights.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nimeon Sangma and others

Respondents

Home Secretary, Government of Meghalaya & Ors
(and others)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Hingorani

Counsels for Respondents

• D. N. Mukherjee

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition challenges alleged illegal detention of a large number of persons under the guise of the judicial process, contending that the criminal justice system undergoes a breakdown when expeditious disposal of investigations and trials is not pursued. The Court underscores the CrPC provisions—Sections 167, 209, and 309—as emphasizing the need for prompt investigation, charge-framing, and disposal of cases, and deplores the delay in investigations and custody without due process. It calls upon the State Government to adopt a policy aimed at ensuring that even indigent accused can access judicial process without being silently incarcerated for long periods, and stresses compliance with the spirit of the Constitution and the Code, particularly Article 21, which guards personal liberty. The Court directs that petitioners 3 and 4 be released on their own bonds to the trial court’s satisfaction, with reporting requirements to the police and appearance when called upon. It also directs the State to release all persons in custody exceeding six months where trials have not commenced or charge sheets are not laid, except in cases involving Sections 302 and 395 IPC. Furthermore, the State must complete investigations within two months for uncharged cases and the Sessions Court must dispose of cases with charge sheets within six months, reporting back in six months. The petition is disposed with a strong admonition to reform practices and uphold constitutional guarantees.

Provisions of Law Cited

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 167, 209, 309Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 395Constitution of India — Article 21

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Expedited disposal of cases
Due process of law
Substance and reality to constitutional and codal provisions
Right to personal liberty under Article 21 as interpreted by this Court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus, contending that illegal detention is taking place under the guise of judicial process. They argue that expeditious disposal of investigations and trials is essential to prevent denial of liberty, citing sections 167, 209 and 309 of the CrPC. They emphasize that indigent accused must not be silenced by prolonged incarceration and urge policy measures for release of under-trial prisoners who have remained in jail for more than six months where trials have not begun or charge-sheets are not filed, with a restricted exception for serious offences (Sections 302 and 395 IPC). They ask for immediate corrective steps and compliance with constitutional guarantees, particularly Article 21.

Contentions of Respondents

The State submits that relying on an affidavit, no person in custody exists in connection with any case; the reply statement acknowledges a number of cases with prolonged detention, but asserts measures are in place to comply. It emphasizes keeping due process intact and requests time for investigations, arguing that broad orders must be cautious to avoid undermining legitimate law enforcement and judicial procedures. The State agrees to consider the court’s directions but seeks to balance administrative realities with legal rights.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against NIMEON SANGMA & ORS v. HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

##### • 785 NIMEON SANGMA & ORS. _v._ HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA & ORS _April_ 30, 1979 ##### rv. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. s. PATHAK AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J _A"11thtistration_ _of_ _Justice-Pre-trial detention-Expeditious disposal_ _of_ _case1_ _,Jnclwli11g_ _i1tvestigations and tri.a/s-Sections_ 167, 209 & 309 _of_ _Criminal Proce-_ _dure_ C~e. 1973. la their petition for the issue of a \Vrit of hab'eas corpus, the pctitionecs alleged -illegal detention of a large number of persongi under guise of the judicial process. lJEW : 1. Criminal Justice breaks down at a point 1,vhen expeditious trial is not '8.ttempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in Sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasised the importance of .expeditions disposal of tases including investigations and trials.. [786E] 2. The State Government to take a policy decision \•iith a vie\V to ensure that accused persons, too indigent to set in motion th.:: judicbt prucess, do not ·suffer incarceration silently. [787B] 3. The Government will do \vell to comply with the sy1irit of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially in the matter of pcr:";Oil"i :;.ought to be bound over for good behaviour, persons against whom sumrnon::. ca~es are pending and persoas who have been in custody for more than six months.. This will involve a mass releas'e from j'ai!s, but Governn1ent has to pay homage in sub~ stance a1.d reality to the provisions of the Constitution and the Code. [787C) 1 he Court directed that : (a) The State do consent to r'elease all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom. charge sheets have not been laid excepting in those cases under Se:clions 302 and 395 J.P.C. [786G] (b) The Stare shall complete investigation within t\vo months in cases where ckarge.,,heets have not been laid. [786H] (C) The Sessions Court concerned should dispose of the cases where charge~ sheet$ have been laid and commitment has been made \Vithin six monthi, [786HJ C!uMIN,AL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 211 of 1979. _K._ _Hingorani_ for the Petitioners. _D._ _N. Mukherjee_ for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by A B #### c D E F G KRirnNA IYER, J.-This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of H habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention of a large number of persons under guise of the judicial proce'ss. 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 S.C.R. A Even \\ithout going into details, we are satisfied that petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 should be released on their own· bonds to the satisfaction of the trial ro:;rt subject to their reporting to the nearest poliee stati0n once every fortnight ~nd appearing in court whenever called upon to do so to take their trial. We direct accordingly. ###### n So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the State in its affidavit swenr that there is no such person in custody in connection with any case. This matter will be scrutinised further by the State so that it may satisfy it ~elf th~! no one is in custody except under due process of law. -----This Court in its earlkr order dated March _5,_ 1979 has directed the C State to file a statement containing particulars of the under-trial prisoners who have been confined in Jail for a period of over six months without their trials having commenced. Further details as to the ages of such ·under-trials, the dates from which they were confined and the offences , ~. / ###,.._ / with which they were 9harged were also called for. In the reply statement put in by the respondent, we find a larg~ number of cases where D · detention for considerable periods, without the trial having even com menced, is being su!Iered by various persons. Criminal justice breaks dawn, at a point when expeditious frial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure Code in sections l67, 209 and 309 hns emphasised the importance o[ expediE tious disposal of cases includ;ng investigation.s and trials. It is unfortunate, indeed pathetic, that there should have b~cn such considerable delay in investigations by the police in.utter disregard of the fact th:it a citizen Jias been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is accused of an ofience. We do not approve of this course and breach of the rule of law and express our strong displeasure at this chaotic state F of a!Iairs verging on wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under ·, .. ~e Cons.titution especially under Article 21 as interpreted by [this Court. ] 0 [this Court. ] G H Even so we do not wish to pass any orders at the moment until more p"!ficulars ·are brought to our notice. It will suffice for the presentand counsel for the State assures us that any direction given by this Court will be promptly complied with-that' we direct the State to consent to release all persons who have been in custody for over six months and whose trials have not commenced or against whom charge sheets have not been laid., But make one exception in cases" where sections 302 and 395, IPC are involved. We direct that the State shall complete the investigation within two months from today ·where charge sheets have not been laid and further direct the Sessions Court concerned to dispose of the cases where charge sheets have been laid and commitment has been made, within six months from today. A report will be made to ## _(_ ##### • N. SANGMA _v._ HOME SECRETARY _(Krishna Iyer,_ _!.)_ 7 87 this Court at the end of six months from today by the State. We must emphatically record our view that there has been a self-condemnation in the statement put in by the State Govermnent in that in quite a number of cases which are not of a serious character and even in those which involve serious offences, investigations have been pending for nearly two years. There are cases where persons have been in custody for five years-a situation too ghastly for a civilised country like ours. We therefore draw lhe attention of the State Government to take a policy decision with a view to ensnre that accnsed persons, too indigent to set in motion the judicial process, do not suffer incarceration silently. The Govermnent will do well to comply wi1h the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially in the matter of persons sought to be bound over for good behaviour, persons against whom summons cases are pending and persons who have been in custody for more than six months. Maybe this will involve a mass release from Jails, but Government has to pay homage in substance and reality to the provisions of the Constitution and the Code. With these observations, and directions, we dispose of this petition. N.V.K. _Petition disposed_ # •• A B ### c D )