- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P.K Shastri v. State Of M.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while disposing of a bail application on 26-9-1997, directed the Sessions Court at Datia to conclude Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1995 within four months of receiving the record. The appellant, who was the Presiding Officer of that court, was unable to meet the deadline. On 6-3-1998 the High Court sought his explanation for (i) adjourning the case on 20-10-1997, (ii) permitting the Additional Public Prosecutor to leave court on 14-1-1998, and (iii) failing to finish the trial within the stipulated period. The appellant replied on 12-3-1998, citing chronic non-appearance of witnesses, delays caused by the defence, and the Additional Public Prosecutor’s competing administrative duties. Dissatisfied, the High Court on 3-4-1998 ordered that an adverse remark be entered in the appellant’s Confidential Report (CR) stating that he lacked control over court proceedings. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that specific direction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing an adverse entry in the appellant Presiding Officer’s Confidential Report on the basis of delay in a single criminal trial.
- What considerations govern the making of adverse remarks in a judicial officer’s CR.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- He took all possible steps to dispose of the sessions case, but repeated non-appearance of witnesses required warrants and caused unavoidable delays.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor was simultaneously serving as Additional Director in the District Prosecution Branch and had to comply with summons from the Superintendent of Police, leading to further adjournments beyond the Presiding Officer’s control.
- No pattern of inefficiency was shown; the High Court based its conclusion solely on difficulties encountered in one case.
The opinion does not record detailed arguments from the respondent State.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s legitimate concern for expeditious criminal trials, especially where the accused are in custody. Nonetheless, it found the appellant’s explanation “reasonable,” noting:
- Real and documented difficulties existed in securing witnesses’ attendance.
- Delays were contributed to by the defence and the Additional Public Prosecutor’s dual responsibilities.
The Court emphasised the gravity of adverse CR entries, which can seriously affect a judicial officer’s career. Such remarks must be made only after an objective assessment of comprehensive material, not on the basis of a single case. Here, no evidence showed that the appellant’s alleged lack of control extended beyond the particular trial or undermined justice administration generally. Although the Court observed that the appellant could have prudently sought an extension of time from the High Court, this omission did not warrant an adverse CR entry.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction dated 3-4-1998 to record an adverse remark in the appellant’s Confidential Report.
Immediate Effect: The appellant’s service record remains unblemished; no adverse entry will be made.
Broader Implication: The judgment underscores that adverse remarks in judicial officers’ CRs require a thorough, objective evaluation of performance across cases, not isolated incidents. However, the decision establishes no new legal precedent beyond reinforcing careful use of CR entries.
N. Santosh Hegde, J.— Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged before us that part of the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the learned Judge had
“directed that an entry be made in the CR of the Presiding Officer that he has no control over the proceedings of the court inasmuch as he permits the prosecutor to leave several times during the court hours, as a result, the work suffers as pointed out by him in his explanation dated 12-3-98. Let copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General, for making an entry in the CR of the Presiding Officer”.
The brief facts necessary for considering this appeal are as follows:
While disposing of a bail application, the High Court on 26-9-1997 directed that the trial court at Datia before which Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1995 was pending, should dispose of the said case within 4 months from the date of receipt of the records of the case. Since the said direction was not complied with by the appellant who was the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court at that time, the High Court as per its order dated 6-3-1998 called for an explanation from the appellant; more particularly, as to why the appellant, as the Presiding Officer, had adjourned the case on 20-10-1997 and why he allowed the Additional Public Prosecutor to leave the Court on 14-1-1998. The said order also specifically directed the appellant to submit his explanation as to why the sessions trial was not concluded within 4 months as per the directions issued by the order of the High Court on 26-9-1997.
4. The appellant submitted his explanation on 12-3-1998 wherein he explained in detail as to what steps were being taken for disposal of the sessions case and how he was handicapped by non-appearance of the witnesses whose presence had to be secured through warrants every time. He assured the High Court that all possible efforts will be made to finalise the proceedings as soon as possible. In regard to the query made as to the non-appearance of the Additional Public Prosecutor, he submitted that the said officer was not under his supervisory control and that the Additional Public Prosecutor was, at the relevant time, also performing the duties of Additional Director in the Office of the District Prosecution Branch in addition to his own duty as Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, whenever he is summoned by the Superintendent of Police of the district, he had to obey the said summons and for all these reasons, at times, adjournments became inevitable. In support of his explanation that reasonable steps were being taken by him to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant along with his explanation enclosed the order-sheet of the case concerned. However, the High Court was not satisfied with this explanation and was pleased to pass an order which is impugned in this appeal, as referred to by us hereinabove.
5. We have carefully considered the explanation given by the appellant. While appreciating the anxiety of the High Court for quick disposal of criminal cases more so in cases where the accused persons are in custody, we feel, in the instant case, the appellant had shown reasonable cause for not being able to comply with the directions of the High Court. The appellant appears to have had some real difficulty in securing the presence of witnesses and the defence also contributed its share in the delay of the proceedings, added by the fact that the Additional Public Prosecutor was saddled with additional responsibilities and had to be away from the Court in that connection.
6. However, we consider that despite the handicaps mentioned above, it would have been more prudent and appropriate for him to have made a proper application to the High Court for extension of time to enable him to comply with the directions of the High Court. Be that as it may, we think that the CRs of an officer are basically the performance appraisal of the said officer and go to constitute vital service record in relation to his career advancement. Any adverse remark in the CRs could mar the entire career of that officer. Therefore, it is necessary that in the event of a remark being called for in the confidential records, the authority directing such remark must first come to the conclusion that the fact situation is such that it is imperative to make such remarks to set right the wrong committed by the officer concerned. A decision in this regard must be taken objectively after careful consideration of all the materials which are before the authority directing the remarks being entered in the CRs. In the instant case, the High Court has rested its opinion in regard to the efficiency of the officer based on the fact situation of a single case and that too with reference to the capacity of the officer concerned to control the proceedings of the Court. There was no material before the High Court that this was the case with the Sessions Judge concerned in other cases also nor does the lacuna pointed out by the High Court appear to be such as would undermine the administration of justice.
7. On taking a holistic view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the High Court, which is impugned in this appeal, should be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned direction issued by the High Court on 3-4-1998.
Alert