SLPs In Criminal Cases Don't Divulge Crucial Information : Supreme Court Says Changes In Rules Of Practice Needed
The Supreme Court today(Oct 13) highlighted that Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in criminal cases often lacked crucial information. The Court expressed its concern and voiced the need for essential changes in the rules and practices of criminal case proceedings. The Court observed that SLPs very often do not contain crucial information such as the age of accused/petitioner. It also noted...
The Supreme Court today(Oct 13) highlighted that Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in criminal cases often lacked crucial information. The Court expressed its concern and voiced the need for essential changes in the rules and practices of criminal case proceedings.
The Court observed that SLPs very often do not contain crucial information such as the age of accused/petitioner. It also noted that the necessary information such as the number of occasions when persons seeking bail have reported to the police or investigating authority, complete chargesheet if any, the order on charge if any, and the number of witnesses examined is usually not disclosed.
In this backdrop, the Court said :
"This Court is of the opinion, that appropriate changes in the rules of practice directions are necessary. This order be brought to the notice of the Secretary-General, Registrar Judicial for suitable action in this regard to enable that in future, all necessary and vital information is disclosed to save unnecessary wastage of time and avoid adjournments. This order shall also be brought to the notice of Chief Justice of India.”
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing an SLP against the judgment of Punjab & Haryana HC which denied the bail to the petitioner booked under Sections 15, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In the present case, the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 120 kgs of poppy husk. The counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case at hand.
During the hearing, Justice Bhat inquired about the minimum and maximum sentence the petitioner was facing, to which the advocate replied that it ranged from a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of 20 years.
The counsel emphasized that the petitioner was not a habitual offender and was implicated for the first time.
Justice Bhat proceeded to ask about the current stage of the trial, to which the counsel revealed that the trial was not making significant progress.
Justice Bhat asked, “When was the charge framed?”
Furthermore, he disclosed that the charges had been framed on September 8, 2021, and out of 20 witnesses, only four witnesses had been examined so far.
The matter was posted to Tuesday and the counsel assured that he would file the requisite documents before the court.
Case title: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 12876/2023