( 1 ) THIS is an application by D. S. Bhatnagar, an under-trial b class prisoner confined in the Central Jail, New Delhi, for his release on bail pending his trial under section 307 Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. The alleged offences are stated to have been committed on 23-8-1966. The petitioner claims to belong to a respectable family is a B. Sc. from the United States and a Law Graduate from the Government Law College, Bombay, having passed the Bar Council Examination and also being on the rolls of the Bombay High Court. At the present moment, he claims to be an officer in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. He has averred in his application that the police have had four months time for investigation and the challan has actually been filed in Court. But there has been practically no progress in the case since then. From the record, I find that the evidence of P. W. 1 Uma Shankar and P. W 2 Daya Nath was recorded on 3-11-1966 by the learned Magistrate Shri M. M. Oberoi.

ONE has to struggle to trace the progress of the case from the record of the Court below. The index of the record is not maintained in accordance with the relevant directions contained in High Court Rules and Orders. The entries in Column No. 4 are not in sufficient detail to allow the papers described therein to be identified. They are vague and unprecise and presumably not made in due course on the prescribed dates according to the rules. The first two leave? of printed index form are blank, though the heading of the case is filled in. Another such index form bearing page No. 1 has. in the space meant for heading in the column "name of Pargana" and "goshwara number", a number of dates, noted in the form of a column. It is difficult to identify the papers on the record from pages 1 and 2 of this form.

A number of dates beginning with "28/10" and ending with "25/11" appear in a column. The evidence taken down on 3-11-1966 in Hindi is found at pages 147 to 149 and the typed English record of this evidence at pages 151 to 161. The English typed record of the testimony of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 has not been properly tagged and I find that after page 151 the tagged record contains page 159 pages 153 to 158 being separately pinned. Page 153, I may point out, contains a part of the evidence of P. W 1 and page 158, the whole of the testimony of P. W. 2. At page 157, one finds an unsigned duplicate carbon copy of the testimony of P. W. 1, the remaining testimony going on to page 159 and page 161 containing the unsigned duplicate carbon copy of the testimony of P. W. 2. At the conclusion of this evidence I do not find any order in the handwriting of the Presiding Officer of the Court. It is a matter tor surprise that the sheet of paper on which the evidence was recorded on 3-11-1966 should till today after a lapse of two months has not been properly tagged at its proper place in the judicial record. This attitude of unconcern towards the maintenance of judicial records is difficult for this court to appreciate and countenance.

( 2 ) REVERTING to the record of proceedings presumably in the handwriting of the Reader on 3-11-1966, after noting the presence of the accused and of the P. S. I. , it was recorded that two witnesses had been examined and the ease as adjourned to 7-11-1966 tor cross-examination by the accused. On 7-11-1966, it was noted that the accused was not present and the Presiding Officer was on special duty. The case was accordingly adjourned to 15-11-1966 for appropriate proceedings. On 15-11-1966. it was again recorded that the accused had not come from jail. The case was adjourned to 19-11-1966 for calling the accused. On 19-11-1966, again it was noted that the accused had not come from jail and he was summoned for 25-11-1966. On that date again, it was noted that the accused had not come from jail and the Presiding Officer and the P. S. I. were on special duty. The accused was accordingly ordered to be called

Click Here to Read the rest of this document