Lahiri, J. :- The true role of a Judge trying a criminal case has been underscored by the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1036 : (1981 Cri LJ 609), Ramchander v. State of Haryana. Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Supreme Court has outlined instructive guidelines for the trying Judges which must put all the Judges. on gear. Drawing inspirations from "The History of English Law" by Pollock and Maitland to Jones v. National Coai Board, (1957) 2 All ER 155 : (1957) 2 WLR 760 and instructive observations of his Lordship in ILR (1972) Andh Pra 683 : (1972 Cri LJ 1485), Sessions Judge, Nellora v. Intha Ramana Reddy, it has been ruled that in adversary system of trial which we have in India, the trying Judge should shun the role of 'a referee' or 'an umpire' to permit the prosecution and the defence to combat in the legal arena. He should assume an active role in the proceedings. The trial Judge must be an effective instrument in dispensing justice; he must cease to be spectator a, mere recording machine. The trial Judge must be a participant in the proceedings with the sole objective to ascertain the truth. "Truth finding" is the sole job of the Judges. However his Lordship has warned in no uncertain manner, that while participating in the proceeding, the trial Judge should not unduly trespass upon the functioning of the public prosecutor or the defence counsel nor should the Court exhibit any partisanship or make any gesture to frighten or bully the witnesses. While dealing with the provisions of S.165 of the Evidence Act and S.172 of the Cr. P.C., his Lordship observed, "Every criminal case is a voyage in which the truth is the quest. It is the duty of a presiding Judge to explore every avenue open to him in order to discover the truth and advance the cause of justice .. ... ... S.172(2) of the Cr. P.C. enables the Court to send for the police diaries in a case and use them to aid in the trial. The record of the proceeding of the committing Magistrate may also be perused by the Sessions Judge to further aidhim in the trial.

This is the true role of a trial Judge.

2-3. Has the learned Sessions Judge who has despatched the indigent accused to guillotine played his part of the game ?

While performing the duty of investigation the police carry out "a sacred public duty". The noble objective of investigation is to enable the Court to find out truth. The police, who have been put in trust of investigation by the will of the people must bear that "the people's trust" or the "public trust" should not be shaken by unseemly, unbecoming, improper, partial and biased investigation. The police must fairly and squarely investigate the cases of the prosecutor as well as the accused. In our system of jurisprudence, the burden to unearth a case is entirely entrusted upon the police. In most of the cases, the accused are poor and the responsibilities of the investigating agencies are very onerous. The police, under the constitutional mandate, are obliged to see that proper 'Justice' is dispensed and the guilty is punished. It is never the duty of the police to hook a suspect at any cost, nor is it the function of the police to eschew investigation of the case appearing in favour of the accused. The police must make antiseptic investigations - it should leave no germs or virus of reasonable doubts nor should the investigating agency exhibit imbalance in favour of either party. An able investigator should not leave germs of apparent doubts or suspicions they should be resolved at the investigation stage, as far as possible. An antiseptic investigation establishes case beyond reasonable doubt whereas germful investigation where lurk doubts and suspicions, eat up the foundation of an otherwise strong prosecution case and the Courts are compelled to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

Has the investigation agency performed its duties which it was obliged to do under the Constitution of India and the laws ? Have the judicial officers who came i