# This fact may be brought to the notice of all the Judicial Officers subordinate to

- **Citation:** C.L.No.8/VIIb-18
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 2000-02-07
- **Case number:** C.L.No.8/VIIb-18
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/this-fact-may-be-brought-to-the-notice-of-all-the-judicial-officers-subordinate-163631
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

359
 This fact may be brought to the notice of all the Judicial Officers subordinate to
High Court for strict compliance.
(vii)
Compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in
judgment- Criminal Miscellaneous petition no.2326/99 in criminal appeal
No.1045/98 Raj Deo Sharma vs. state of Bihar.
C.L.No.8/VIIb-18: Dated: Allahabad: February 7, 2000.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous
petition No.2326/99 in criminal Appeal No.1045/98- Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar
has issued certain directions to be followed by the trial Judges. The Hon'ble Supreme
court has also desired to circulate the judgment to all the trial Judges so that may comply
with the provisions of Section 309 of the code in the letter and spirit.
I am, therefore, directed to send herewith a copy of the judgment, aforesaid and to
request you kindly to circulate the same to all the trial judges for strict compliance of the
directions as contained therein.
C.L.No.25: VIIIg-38: Dated 16 June, 2000
Hon'ble supreme Court of India on May 1, 1986 in Writ Petition No 1128/86
(Common Cause vs. Union of India and others) gave the following directions for the
release of under trial languishing in jail.
1.
Where the offences under IPC or any other law for the time being in force for
which the accused are charged before any criminal court are punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding three years with or without fine and if trial for such offences
are pending for one year or more and the accused concerned have not been released on
bail but are in jail for a period of six months or more. The criminal court concerned shall
release the accused on bail or on personal bond to be executed by the accused and subject
to such condition if any as may be found necessary. In the light of section 437 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. (Cr.P.C.).
2.
Where the offences under IPC or any other law for the time being in force for
which the accused are charged before any criminal court are punishable with
imprisonment not offences are pending for two years or exceeding five years with or
without fine and if the trial for such more and the accused concerned have not been
released on bail but are in jail for a period of six months of more the criminal court
concerned shall release the accused upon bail or on personal bond to be executed by the
accused and subject to the imposing of suitable conditions if any in the light of section
437 (CrP.C.).
3.
When the offences under IPC or any other law for the time being in force for
which the accused are charged before any criminal court are punishable with seven years
or less with or without fine and if the trials for such offences are pending for two years
or more and the accused concerned have not been released on bail but are in jail for a
period of six months or more the criminal court concerned shall release the accused on
bail or on personal bond to be executed by the accused and subject to the imposing of
suitable conditions if any in the light of section 437 (CrP.C.).
360
It has been viewed seriously by the Hon'ble Court that above directions are not
followed by the courts and without verifying whether any accused falls under the
aforesaid category, routinely extending the period of remand. Further it has also been
noticed that these matters are also not taken up in the monitoring cell committee
constituted vide the Government Letter No.3986/7-Nyay-2-64G/94 dated 26.11.1994. In
order to ensure the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court following instructions are
issued for immediate implementation:-
1.
All Courts whether Judicial Magistrates of first Class or Special courts,
before extending the period of remand of any prisoner, should ascertain
the period of remand already undergone by the prisoner and examine
whether he is entitled to be released on bail as per the directions, not able
to furnish surety/security they may be released on personal bonds to
ensure their attendance on the dates of hearing.
2.
In the Monitoring Cell Meeting review of the cases of all prisoners who
are in judicial custody for the period of 6 months or more shall also be
considered.
3.
As and when a cases falling under any of the three categories as at (a) to
(c) above mentioned by the Supreme Court is noticed, the concerned court
should suo moto, ―release the accused on bail or on personal bond to be
executed by the accused and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be
found necessary in the light of section 437 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure‖

I am, therefore desired to request you to direct all criminal courts to ensure strict
compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(viii) Compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in the
order dated 30.8.99 in the applications of Criminal Misc. Petition Nos.
6715/97,5969/98 and 4744/99 in Writ Petition (criminal) No.1171 of 1982 -
Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India and others.
C.L.No.29/ VIIf -45: Dated; July 06, 2000
In continuation to the Court's Notification No.314/VII-45, dated October 30,
1991, I am directed to send herewith a copy of letter no. 3545/89/x, dated September 28,
1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi along with the order dated
30.8.1999 passed by the said Court in the applications of Criminal Misc. Petition Nos.
6715/97, 5969/98 and 4744/99 in Writ Petition (criminal) No.1171 of 1982-Laxmi Kant
Pandey vs. Union of India and others which has already been disposed off by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 6th Feb. 1984 reported in AIR SC 469
and to say that it may be read along with the instructions contained in the aforesaid
Court's Notification No.314/ VII-45 dated October 30,1991.
I am, therefore, to request you kindly to ensure that the directions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court contained in its order dated 30-8-1999 be strictly complied with by all
concerned.
(See for Judgment 2001 (9) SCC 379)
361
(ix)
Circulation of copy of judgment dated 28.8.2000 delivered in Criminal
Capital Sentence Reference No. 3 of 2000 connected with Criminal Appeal
Nos. 112, 132, 133, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152 of
2000.
C.L. No. 14/2001 Dated: 23rd March, 2001
I am to directed to send herewith a copy of judgment dated 28.8.2000 passed by
Hon'ble D.K. Trivedi, J. and Hon'ble Kamal Kishor J. High Court, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Criminal Capital Sentence Reference No. 3 of 2000 state vs. Ram Sewak
and others connected with Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 132
of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2000, Criminal
Appeal No. 143 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 145 of
2000, Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2000, Criminal
Appeal No. 148 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of
2000, Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2000 for
information and necessary action.
C.L. No. 23/D.R. (J) Dated: 23 April, 2001
In criminal contempt case No. 16 of 1999and 19 of 1999 in Re: Swami Nath
Yadav, advocate and four others Hon'ble Court held Sri Swami Nath Yadav, Prabodh
Kumar Yadav, Sorakh Yadava, Sheo Dutta Yaddav and Raj Kumar Yadava to be guilty
for contempt of court and they were sentenced of one month's simple imprisonment and
also fine of Rs. 2000/- against them. Against said judgment Criminal Appeals No., 70-71
of 2001 was preferred before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 349-350 of 2001 entitled Prabodh Yadav and Sorakh Yadav
Vs. State of U.P. has been pleased to suspend sentence awarded to the alleged
contemner. However, they have been debarred from practice in any court till the disposal
of these appeals. Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed following orders:-
―The imprisonment sentence passed on the appellants will remain suspended on
the following conditions:
1.
Appellants shall not practice in any court till the disposal of this appeal
and
2.
They shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 5000/- with two solvent
sureties to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. Azamgarh‖.
I am therefore desired to inform you that Sri Prabodh Kumar Yadav and Sorakh
Yadav have been debarred from doing practice in any court.
You are therefore requested to bring the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
notice of all concerned for compliance.
(x)
Compliances of the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in
criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2001- State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and
others.
C.L. No. 17/2001 Dated: 4 May, 2001
While enclosing herewith the copy of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India passed in criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2001, State of U.P. vs. Shambhu
362
Nath Singh and others, I am directed to invite your attention to the legal position and to
ask you to ensure that witnesses in criminal cases summoned for the day should not be
returned back without their examination.
I am, therefore, to request you kindly to ensure that the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court contained in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal be strictly complied with by
all concerned.
(See for Judgment 2001 A.L.J.835)
(xi)
To comply with the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2001. Dinesh Kumar and others vs.
State of U.P. & others with regard to entertaining surrender applications.
C.L. No. 18/2001, Dated: 15th May, 2001
While deciding Criminal Misc. Application No. 1520 of 2001, Dinesh Kumar &
Others Vs. State of U.P. & others Hon'ble High Court has observed that the magistrates
have adopted a peculiar procedure for entertaining surrender applications and thereafter
in such cases the court concerned calls for the report as to whether the person making
such an application is required in the case or not. The Hon'ble Court has further
observed that there is only one provision in the
code, which permits
appearance/surrender of the accused, or one who is suspected in an offence for seeking
bail under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
I am therefore, desired to send herewith a copy of order dated 15.3.20001 passed
by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application for your information,
necessary action and strict compliance of the observations made by the Hon'ble Court.
(xii)
Reproducing the injuries in the Judgment from the injury reports of the
injured person.
C.L. No. 13/VIb-47 Dated: 3rd March, 2002
It has come to the notice of the Court that. Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions
Judges and Magistrates do not specifically mention in their judgments the injuries found
by the doctors on the person of the injured. On this account the Court experiences
difficulty in passing orders on the bail applications filed in appeals. The injury reports in
some cases are not readable because of being written in bad handwriting.
 I am, therefore, directed to request to you to impress upon all the Presiding
Officers of the Criminal Courts, under you to invariably reproduce in their Judgments
the injuries from the injury reports of the injured persons.
(xiii) Circulation of order dated 26.03.2001 of the Hon'ble Court passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1661 of 2001
C.L. No. 23/ Dated: 23rd July, 2002
Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Dash) while disposing of the Criminal
Misc. Application No. 1661 of 2001 has observed with concern that the procedure as
prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure is being overlooked by the police and the
Magistrate both.
363
I am, therefore, directed to send her with a copy of order passed in criminal Misc.
Application No. 1661 of 2001- Ashok Yadav & others vs. State of U.P. & another and to
request you to circulate the same to all the Judicial Officers in your Judgeship for their
guidance and strict compliance of the procedure as prescribed in Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(See for Judgment 2001(2) A Cr. R 1202)
(xiv)
To ensure compliance of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in
Transfer Petition (c) Nos.417-423 of 2002. Union of India & ors. Vs. Radhika
Backliwal & ors.
C.L. No. 33/ Dated: 27th September, 2002
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer petition (C) Nos.417-423 of 2002. Union
of India & ors. Vs. Radhika Backliwal & ors. has been pleased to stay the proceedings in
Writ Petitions filed and pending in respect of retail dealers/ gas agencies /SAO/LDO
dealership in various High Courts/ Proceedings before Subordinate Courts relating to
cancellation dated 9th August, 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed that
the contents of the order be informed to the subordinate courts.
I am, therefore, to send herewith a copy of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Courts in Transfer Petition (C) Nos.417-423 of 2002. Union of India & ors. Vs. Radhika
Backliwal & ors. for information and to request you to kindly ensure strict compliance of
the orders, aforesaid.
(See For Judgment 2003 (2) SCC 316)
(xv)
Circulation of the copy of Judgment and order passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 863 of 2002. Delhi Administration
(Now N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Manohar Lal.
C.L. No. 38/ Dated: 22nd November, 2002
I am directed to send herewith a copy of the Judgment and order of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 863 of 2002. Delhi Administration (Now
N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Manohar Lal and to request you to kindly bring the contents of the
Judgment and order, aforesaid, to the notice of all the Judicial Officers in your judgeship
for their information and compliance.
(For Judgment, see 2002 SCC (Cri.)1670)
(xvi)
To ensure strict compliance of the orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court
passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2745 of 2002. Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat.
C.L. No. 39/2002 Dated: 26th November, 2002
I am directed to send herewith a copy of orders dated 1st October, 2002 passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 2745 of 2002.
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and to request you kindly to bring the
contents of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to the notice of all the officers
concerned in your judgeship and to ensure strict compliance of the directions as
contained in the aforesaid orders of the Apex court.
364
(See for Judgment A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 638)
(xvii) Reproducing the details of the medical examination including post-mortem
examination in the Judgment.
C.L. No. 4/2003 Dated: 20th February, 2003
During the proceedings in Government Appeal No. 406 of 2000, State Vs. Bal
Kishan & others, the Hon'ble court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Agarwal and Hon'ble
Justice R.S. Tripathi) has observed with concern that the post-mortem examination
reports are not detailed properly and also the reports, are either not given or derailed in a
most cursory manner. The Hon'ble court has deprecated this practice.
In this regard, I am directed to say that the trial courts especially Additional
District Judges, who are holding trials for heinous offences, be advised to detail the
medical examinations including post-mortem examination reports properly and at least
injuries should be detailed in the judgments so that the Hon'ble court may appreciate
their observations especially on the medical conflicts. In this regard, a court C.L. No. 13,
dated March 3, 1982 has already been issued earlier (copy enclosed).
I am, therefore, to request you kindly to ensure strict compliance of the directions
as above and also the directions issued earlier though the Court's C.L. No. 13, dated
March3, 1982 and in future non-compliance of the directions of the court shall be viewed
seriously by the Court.
These directions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for future
guidance and strict compliance.
(Xvii-a) To mention the age of convicted persons in the conviction warrants by the
Trial Courts
C.L. No. 6/Admin. ̳G-II' Dated 11.02.2010

The Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to direct that the age of convicted
persons must be recorded in the conviction warrants, sent to jail.

I am, therefore, to request you to kindly bring the contents of this Circular Letter
to the notice of all concerned working under your administrative control for strict
compliance.
(xviii) Submission of death Report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the cases
pending in the Court.
C.L. No. 7/ VIIIb-119Dated: 27th September, 2002
In continuation of the Court's earlier circular letter no 19/VIIIb-119/Admin ―G‖
dated April 11, 1989. I am directed to say that the Hon'ble Court, the Division Bench
presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Agarwal has been pleased to direct that Death
Report submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate received from any Police Station be
forwarded to this Court after holding an enquiry i.e. after recording evidence oral as after
well as documentary, if any, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The Court has further directed that for holding enquiry the statement of
concerned constable, Gram Pradhan and two member of the family may be recorded.
Medical Report relating to death and the report of Police Station be forwarded to the