# has directed as under

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 74/IVg-64
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1971-11-11
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 74/IVg-64
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/has-directed-as-under-163505
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

306
prisoners languishing in jail and after careful consideration of the matter, the Committee
has directed as under:-
―1. For the cases fixed for appearance, all the Trial Judges be asked through the
District Judges to ensure attendance of accused who have not yet appeared, by
coercive measures where other accused are detained in jail unnecessarily. In such
cases, if need be, the bail of such accused may be cancelled and they may be
taken into custody. Such cases where the accused are detained in jail for a
substantial period, may be separated in exceptional circumstances and proceeded
with expeditiously.
2. For the cases pending at the stage of committal to the Court of Sessions, all the
Magistrates be asked through the District Judges to ensure that all such cases be
committed to the Court of Sessions within three weeks positively.
3. For the cases pending at the stage of charge, all the Trial Judges be asked
through the District Judges to ensure that the charges are framed forthwith and the
trial of these cases be concluded at the earliest, if possible, within a period of six
months.
4. In respect of the cases pending for evidence, all the Trial Judges be asked
through the District Judges to ensure that the evidence be concluded and the cases
be disposed of at the earliest, if possible, within four months.
5. For the cases pending for arguments, all the Trial Judges be asked through the
district Judges to ensure that the cases be decided positively within one month and
compliance report be sent to the High Court.
6. For the cases which are shown to be stayed, the District Judges be asked to
submit report about the complete details of the cases stayed and also about the
details of the matter. In which, the stay order has been passed by the Superior
Courts.‖
I am, therefore, to request you to kindly to ensure compliance by all concerned
and to submit compliance report after one month in accordance with the directions of the
Committee.
(iv)
Grant of certificate of exemption from personal attendance to under trials
for going abroad
C.E. No. 136 dated 11th November, 1971

The under trials sometimes apply for temporary restoration of passport facility
either refused or impounded, to proceed abroad for short periods in connection with their
business and there is a possibility of their influencing witnesses for tampering with
documentary evidence. Before granting the certificate for exemption from personal
attendance during the pendency of the case, the Magistrates should take the following
points into consideration:
(i)
The court is in a better position to judge whether an accused's visit abroad is
likely to affect the administration of justice;
307
(ii)
The court can judge the gravity of the offence for which an accused is being tried
by it; and while exempting him/her from personal appearance or not objecting to
his/her visit abroad, impose certain conditions e.g., ask for additional bail sureties,
etc. to ensure that the accused does not escape the punishment that may be
prescribed under the law;
(iii)
In a case in which the court feels that a person should not be allowed to go
abroad, it can pass orders to that effect under sections 6(2)(g) and 10(3)(h) of the
Passport Act, 1967;
(iv)
For restoration of passport facilities, it should be considered if the visit of the
accused is likely to bring some benefit to the country e.g., foreign exchange,
foreign collaboration, export promotion, etc.;
(v)
Grant of passport facilities is entirely the responsibility of the Government of
India. There should, however, be no objection to the courts granting certificates
for ―exemption from personal appearance‖ or ―no objection to proceed abroad, for
short periods‖ during the pendency of the case.
(v) Corruption cases
C.E. No. 69 dated 6th November, 1963

Delay in disposal of cases of corruption against government servants often leads
to acquittal of accused. Priority should, therefore, be given to disposal of cases of
corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
C.L. No. 74/IVg-64 Admn. A dated 2nd August, 1980

The cases submitted by the State Vigilance Department should be dealt with on
priority basis by the District & Sessions Judge himself or some senior Additional
Sessions Judge who may be deputed for the purpose.

If it is not possible for District Judges to devote sufficient time to the disposal of
cases submitted by the State Vigilance Department, they may allot such cases to one
senior Additional Sessions Judge, with directions to dispose of those cases on priority
basis.
C. L. No-38/2007: Admin 'G' Dated: 31.8. 2007.
The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, in its 4th Report titled 'Ethics in
Governance' has inter alia, recommended that:-
a)
it has to be ensured that the proceedings of courts trying cases under the
Prevention 0f Corruption Act are held on a day-to-day basis, and no
deviation is permitted.
b)
the Supreme Court and the High Courts may lay down guidelines to
preclude unwarranted adjournments and avoidable delays.
In this regard, I am directed to say that the above recommendations of the
Administrative Reforms Commission be complied with strictly and it be ensured that the
proceedings of courts trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are held on a
day-to-day basis without any deviation by the concerned court functioning under your