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

- **Citation:** [1979] 3 S.C.R. 785
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-04-30
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 211 of 1979
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nimeon-sangma-ors-v-home-secretary-govt-of-meghalaya-ors-7801
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

•
•
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 Procedure 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 commenced, 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 pa

## Text

•
•
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 Procedure 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 commenced, 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
0this 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