The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. I.A. No. 7987 of 2013 IN Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 776 of 2013 … Prakash Singh … Appellant -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand … ... ... ... Respondent.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. … For the Appellant For the State … : - Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate. : -A.P.P. ... 5/ Dated: 11 Per D.N. Patel, J. th December, 2013 1. Mrs. Rupam Prasad wife of Vijay Sinha, presently posted as Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka is present before this Court. 2. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2004/ 06 of 2004 and there is a delay of 2989 days in preferring the criminal appeal and, therefore, the present interlocutory application has been preferred. Today, it is fairly submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that previously very same appellant (original accused No. 1 of Sessions Case No. 100 of 2004/ 06 of 2004) has already preferred Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No. 1506 of 2005 and, therefore, neither he is pressing the criminal appeal nor the present interlocutory application. 3. It appears that the Stamp Reporter could not point out the defect that earlier the very same appellant has already preferred Criminal Appeal. 4. It further appears that the Data Records, which are maintained in computer by this Court have two types of Data :- (a) Core Data, and (b) Peripheral Data. 5. It further appears that the defect, which has been pointed out is on the internal part of this criminal memo in red ink and some time, it has been written in blue ink on the cover of the criminal appeal memo, but nothing is pointed out in the order sheet by the High Court and, therefore, two appeals have been preferred by the very same accused. 6. under:- There are certain difficulties with these types of matters and they are as (a) There are two sessions numbers given in this case in the following style as Sessions Case No. 100 of 03/ 06 of 2004.:- The practice adopted by the trial court is absolutely novice and de hors the procedure known under the criminal manual because for one criminal appeal if any data is to be inserted in the computer of this Jharkhand High Court only one Sessions case number can be taken as a Data entry and there cannot be two numbers of the Sessions Trial. (b) We have also observed that in the State of Jharkhand several Sessions Judges are using the word “Sessions Case Number” whereas, few are mentioning as “Sessions Trial Number”. Some judges of the trial court are also mentioning “A” with the number of the Sessions Trial in case of absconding accused, whereas, some judges of the trial court are using “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” with the year also and some judges are using , especially in Khunti District the word “K” is also using in narrating the Sessions Case. These types of different nomenclature is also creating the difficulty in fining out whether a particular accused has preferred appeal or not. This anomaly has to be removed at the earliest. (c) There is also one more difficulty in finding out whether on earlier occasion very same accused has preferred an appeal or not, because even if the name is written, the correct data is not coming out. Even if, Sessions Trial Number is written, sometimes, correct data is not being generated and, therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for both the sides that initially P.S. Case Number/Complaint Case Number/Special Case Number etc. was being inserted by the Data Entry Operator which was much easier and more accurate to get the details about the previous applications/appeals preferred by the very same applicant. In this case, the Advocate who is appearing on behalf of the appellant is an accurate Advocate. This Court has also appointed him as an amicus curiae in several matters and it is submitted by him that he has also verified personally before filing of this appeal but no Data was generated whether previously any appeal has been preferred by the very same appellant or not and, therefore, by bona fide mistake, this criminal appeal has been preferred. To avoid this type of repeated errors, both on the part of the appellant as well as on the part of this Hon'ble High Court in peripheral Data of the Computers record, if P.S. Case Number/Complaint Case Number/Special Case Number etc. is inserted in any criminal matter, be it bail application, anticipatory bail application, criminal revision, criminal appeal etc. then it will be easier for all the stake holders to find out whether previously, any such type of applications/appeals were preferred by the very same applicant or not or. Even if, other side has also preferred any such application/appeal that can be also very quickly and accurately found out from the Data of this Court. It it also a major difficulty and if P.S. Case Number/Complaint Case Number/Special Case Number etc. is added many more difficulties can be resolved. (d) There is one more difficulty in generating Data from the Bank of this Court if any application/appeal is preferred, for example application/appeal is preferred by (i) Mr. A. (ii) Mr. B. (iii) Mr. C. (iv) Mr. D. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. If, this is a type of any application or any appeal then the Data entry Operator of this Court is feeding only name of Mr. A and Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand. This creates difficulty when anybody wants to know whether Mr. B or Mr. C or Mr. D has preferred any application/appeal or not, because no data, will be generated for Mr. B, C and D because in a Data Entry the name of only first applicant or appellant has been mentioned in this Court. Instead of this, all the names of the petitioners/applicants/ appellants should have been mentioned while entering the Date into Computer of this Court. (e) If possible, the name of the District should also be mentioned by the Advocates in their memo of application/appeal and the same should also be entered into the Data Bank of this Court. This will also solve several problems by getting the knowledge of the particular district or if any data for a particular District is to be generated, the same can be generated very quickly and accurately and, therefore, in a peripheral Data in the PUNE Model, these entries can be added. In a core data, no change is permissible but in a peripheral Data changers are permissible as the need of the High Court concerned. 7. Registry of this Court is directed to place this order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court for appropriate decision to be taken on the administrative side. 8. This appeal is a repetition of the earlier appeal already preferred by this very same appellant being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1506 of 2005 and, therefore, this appeal is hereby disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently, I.A. No. 7987 of 2013 is also
Decision
disposed of. APK/Anu (D.N. Patel, J) (P.P. Bhatt, J.)