Sessions Judge

n K. Rama Reddy Vs. State 1998 (3) ALD 305 it is ruled as under; 68 “7. Though the report of the learned District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar dated 30-10-1996 is a confidential one, as it was specifically referred to in the ground, and the appellants are aware of it and a copy of it is available in the records and bias is alleged against the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, it is necessary to notice the said report. The relevant portions of it are as follows: 4. My discreet enquiries revealed that the concerned Section Clerks, the I and II Additional District Judges, their Additional Public Prosecutors and the Advocates all have joined hands in tampering with these bail applications and the Registers. 5. It is necessary to state here how the bail applications are registered, how they are made over to the Additional District Courts, and how the relevant entries of these applications are made in the concerned Registers. 15. The Modus Operandi is - the Advocate files a bail application falsely mentioning that the offence alleged against the accused is one under Section 307 I.P.C. After it was made over to any of the Additional District Courts, the figures ‘307’ are altered to 302 in the bail application/s wherever ‘the figures 307’ occur. In case of offence u/s. 376 IPC, they file bail applications initially mentioning that the offence committed in one u/s. 354 IPC. After it was made over to any of the Addl. District Courts, the figures ‘354’ are altered to ‘376’ in the application/s. 16. The second mode of getting their bail applications made over to the Addl. District Courts is - they falsely give a number of an earlier bail application, which was made over to the disposed of by any of the Addl. District Judges. 69 19. By adopting these malpractices they used to get their bail applications made over to any of the Addl. District Courts of their choice, for reasons best known to them. The earlier bail application referred to by them in the bail application will have nothing to do with the present application. The staff of the Principal District Court will not have any opportunity to check the earlier application, as the earlier bail application mentioned by them would be in that Court only. 20. The concerned Advocates, Clerks of the Addl. District Courts, Additional Public Prosecutors joined hands in this racket and the role of the two Addl. District Judges cannot be ruled out in this murky affair. 21. The malpractices that were resorted to are apparent on the face of the records, and they are detailed below.” 8. Thereafter, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar dealt with specific cases. 9. What is apparent from this report dated 30-10-1996 is that certain devious methods were being adopted in the Sessions Court at Karimnagar by certain advocates with the connivance of the staff of the I and II Additional Sessions Courts and the Additional Public Prosecutors attached to those courts, and that the two Additional Sessions Judges at the relevant time were also parties aware of those devious methods employed mostly in matters relating to bails - C.C. No. 29 of 1997 relates to a land acquisition O.P. These devious methods polluted the streams of justice and necessitated urgent correctives and action in the interests of administration of justice. The occurrences were not isolated instances totally 70 unconnected with one another there was a pattern in the modus operandi adopted, with minor variations. I am of the view that this background is very relevant in considering the contentions raised in these matters. 64. It is not necessary to minutely examine the facts mentioned in the orders and complaints in each of the cases and express views because the enquiry into the offences is still to be conducted and it would not be proper to pre-judge or prejudice the cases, as observed by the Supreme Court in MS Sheriffs case, AIR 1954 SC 397. The learned Counsel also did not take me through the facts of each of these cases. The facts mentioned in Calendar Case Nos. 1 and 4 of 1997 illustrate the methods employed in all these matters. In Calendar Case No. 1 of 1997 (in respect of which Criminal Appeal Nos. 275, 307 and 337 of 1997 have been preferred) the facts are stated as follows: “Firstly, Sri S. Chandra Mohan, Advocate filed an application for bail on behalf of the accused No. 4 Sanjeev on 22-4-1996 in Cr.M.P. No. 884/96 and it was dismissed as not pressed on 30-4-1996 by the complainant. Again A1 (Appellant in Crl.A. No. 337/97) filed another bail application on 7-5-1996 in Cr.M.P. No. 961/96 on behalf of the same Sanjeev falsely mentioning the Cr. No. as 91/96 of Karimnagar, II Town u/s. 307 IPC and it was also dismissed by the complaint as not pressed on 9-5-1996. Again A2 (did not prefer appeal) filed another bail application in Cr.M.P. No. 992/96 on 13-5-1996 on behalf of the same Sanjeev (A4 falsely mentioning the Cr. No. as 96/96 of Karimnagar, II Town u/s. 307 IPC and it was also 71 dismissed as no representation on 14-5-1996 by the complainant. On or about 21-5-1996 all the accused and the I-Addl. Sessions Judge who was in charge of the II-Addl. Sessions Judge entered into criminal conspiracy to do all sorts of illegal acts in order to get their bail application made over to any of the Addl. Sessions Courts with a view to get favourable orders. In pursuance of their criminal conspiracy suppressing the earlier three bail applications, which were dismissed by the complainant earlier, A1 once again filed another bail application on behalf of A4 in Cr.M.P. No. 1086/96 on 21- 5-1996 mentioning the Cr. No. as 91/96 falsely, instead of Cr. No. 97/96 u/s. 302. IPC, knowing that the said information is false and the earlier three bail application were dismissed, giving the impression that the bail application is filed for the first time. A4, the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1086/96 is not an accused either in Cr. No. 91/96 or Cr. No. 96/96 of Karimnagar, IITown Police Station. A1 and A2 who are advocates, are legally bound to state the truth, but they intentionally gave false information in a judicial proceeding viz., bail application, knowing fully well-that their statements are false and they thereby fabricated false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The IAddl. Sessions Judge who was in charge of the District and Sessions Court and a party to the conspiracy, made over the bail application to the II-Addl. Sessions Court on 22-5- 1996 and it was received by A3 (appellant in Crl. A. No. 307/97) on 23-5-1996. 72 Entries in respect of the Cr.M.P. No. 1086/96 are made in the Cr.M.P. Register and Diary of the Prl. Dist. Court and also in the Cr.M.P. Register of the II-Addl. Sessions Court as Cr. No. 91/96 in which originally the bail application was filed: In pursuance of their criminal conspiracy after the bail application was made over to the II-Addl. Sessions Court, A3 who was the custodian of the bail application got the application tampered with by altering the Cr. No. from 91/96 to 97/96 in the cause title, on the office note, on the docket sheet, memo of appearance and in the process payment form, which are records of the court, without lawful authority and thus fabricated and forged the records of a Court of Justice illegally with intent to commit fraud in relation to a judicial proceeding to make it appear that the application was originally filed in Cr. No. 97/96. In pursuance of their conspiracy A5 and the I-Addl. Session Judge, who was in charge of the II-Addl. Sessions Judge helped A1, A2 and A4 by willfully, and intentionally ignoring the dismissal of earlier three bail applications and the alterations in the bail application and the said Judge granted bail to A4 on 27-5-1996. By using as genuine a tampered and forged bail application the petitioner (A4) has been granted bail and thus benefited.” 66. In Calendar Case No. 13 of 1997 (in respect of which Criminal Appeal Nos. 385 and 394 of 1997 have been preferred) the facts alleged are as follows: “on or about 7-8-1996 all the accused and Sri P. Thirupathi Reddy, the then II-Addl. Sessions Judge entered into a criminal conspiracy to do all sorts of illegal acts in 73 order to get their bail application made over to the II-Addl. Sessions Court with a view to get favourable orders. In pursuance of their criminal conspiracy A1 (1st appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 394/97) filed an application for bail in Cr.M.P. No. 1714/96 on 7-8-1996 on behalf of A4 and A5 furnishing a false Cr. No. 25/90 of P.S. Yellareddipet and a false Cr.M.P. No. 1626/96, stating that was filed by their co-accused and were granted bail by the II-Addl. Sessions Court. A1 and A5 have nothing to do with Cr. No. 25/90 u/ss. 148,- 307T/IV.-149 IPC and Section 25/(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 of P.S. Yellareddipet and also with Cr.M.P. No. 1626/96. Only with a view to get their bail application made over to the II-Addl. Sessions Court, A1 and A2 (2nd appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 394/97), for the benefit of their client, A4 and A5, furnished a false Cr. No. and Cr.M.P. No. in the bail application. A1 and A2, who are advocates, are legally bound to state the truth, but they intentionally furnished false information in the bail application, knowing fully well that their statement is false and the accused thereby fabricated false evidence in a judicial proceeding. On account of the false statement made by the accused, the complainant was misled to make over the bail application to the II-Addl. Sessions Court for disposal. After the bail application was made over to the II-Addl. Sessions Court, in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy A2 filed an application Cr.M.P. No. 334/96 on 8-8-1996 u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. to amend the Cr. No. 25/90 to 12 of 1994 in the bail application. 74 The then II-Addl. Sessions Judge and A3 (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 385/97) helped the other accused by willfully and intentionally ignoring the false Cr.M.P. No. 1626/96, which has no connection either with A4 and A5 or the Crime in which they are involved. The II-Addl. Sessions Judge, who is a party to the conspiracy, allowed the petition for amendment on 13-8—1996 and granted bail to A4 and A5. The II-Addl. Sessions Judge is being proceeded with departmentally and is now under suspension.”