NATHU@ PARAS RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

NATHU@ PARAS RAM 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ .] 
B 
Supreme Court Rules, 1964: 
Order 21, Rule 8-Jail petitions-Prompt listing of in Court-
Summoning of records from courts below/Tribunal-Held, it does not appear C 
to be reasonable that in each and every case when the matter is being placed 
before the Registry, the records would be sent for and when they are in 
vernacular language, the same would be translated into English-When the 
special leave petitions are forwarded through the officer-in-charge of the jail 
along with certified copy of the judgment, the same should urgently be placed D 
before the Court -The first listing of the case should not be delayed-At best 
an office note be placed that the translated copy of the records has not been 
sent; and if the records are directed to be called for, the same are required 
to be translated-It is only in cases where records are required to be called 
for, the same should be done; as otherwise it may await the order of the 
Court-Registry is directed to act in terms of this order in future. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 004 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.200I of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 270/1999 and F 
S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 244/1999. 
Shankar Divate for the Appellant. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
Perused the report of the Registrar (Judicial) dated 26.09.2006. The 
905 
G 
H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A special leave petition was filed on I0.06.2004, which was sent by one Nathu 
@ Parasram, who is in custody. He had sent a copy of the judgment passed 
by the High Court. The record was, however, put up on 04.09.2006. 
It is in the aforementioned premise that an inquiry was directed to be 
conducted. The Registrar (Judicial), in his report, inter a/ia, stated that the 
B office had sent for the records of the courts below which caused delay. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to Order XX! Rule 8 of the 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, relevant portion whereof is in the following terms; 
"8. (I) If the petitioner is in jail and is not represented by an 
advocate on record he may present his petition for special leave to 
appeal together with the certified copy of the Judgment and any 
written argument which he may desire to advance to the officer-in-
charge of the jail, who shall forthwith forward the same to the Registrar 
of this Court. Upon receipt of the said petition, the Registrar of the 
Court shall, whenever necessary call, from the proper officer of the 
Court or the Tribunal appealed from, the relevant documents for 
determination of the petition for special leave to appeal. 
(2) As soon as all necessary documents are available the Registrar 
shall, assign an Advocate from a panel of amicus curiae and thereafter 
place the petition and complete documents for hearing before the 
Court. The fee of the advocate so engaged shall be Rs.250/- upto the 
admission stage and a lump sum not exceeding Rs.500/- for the hearing 
of the appeal arising therefrom, as may be fixed by the Bench hearing 
the appeal, and in an appropriate case, the Bench hearing the case 
may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, sanction payment of 
a lump sum not exceeding Rs.750/-." 
Rules framed by this Court must be read in consonance with the 
fundamental rights of the prisoners. A prisoner when sends a petition or an 
appeal from jail, the same requires immediate attention of this Court. The 
Court while entertaining a special leave petition having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case, may suspend his sentence or allow his prayer for 
bail. Each petition is accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the High 
Court, which is supplied free of charge to the prisoners. It does not, therefore, 
appear to be reasonable that in each and every case when the matter is being 
placed before the Registry, the records would be sent for and when they are 
H in vernacular language, the same would be translated into English. 
r 
. 
NA THU @ PARAS RAM v. STA TE OF RAJASTHAN 
907 
The Rule no doubt permits the Registrar to call for documents, but the A 
same is required to be done only when the same is found to be necessary 
and not otherwise. Records of the case should not, thus, be called for in a 
mechanical manner. 
We, therefore, direct that when th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.