SANJIT SAHA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 09-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 83 : 2023 INSC 1085
83
CASE DETAILS
SANJIT SAHA & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D. No. 46699 of 2018)
OCTOBER 09, 2023
[K. V. VISWANATHAN, J.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the steps/guidelines 
to be taken in cases where despite the convicts surrendering within the 
time granted by the Supreme Court but no communication forthcoming 
on or before the matter was listed in Chambers and due to lapse in the 
communication, peremptory dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XXII r. 5 – Special Leave 
Petitions in Criminal Proceedings – Surrendering by the accused – 
Lapse in the communication – Eﬀ ect:
Held: Convict has to surrender to the sentence before ﬁ ling the Special 
Leave Petition unless an application for exemption from surrendering is 
ﬁ led – Judge In-chambers has the power to exempt from surrendering or 
to refuse exemption – When a Judge In-Chamber grants time to surrender, 
at the next hearing, the Judge has to be informed as to whether the convict 
has surrendered or not – If exemption from surrendering is refused and the 
accused does not surrender, the matter should be placed before Chamber 
judge for non-prosecution – On facts, both the petitioners surrendered within 
the time granted by Supreme Court but however there was no communication 
forthcoming on or before the matter was listed in Chambers and due to lapse 
in the communication, Special Leave Petition were peremptory dismissed 
– Jail authorities were under obligation to communicate to the Court 
information about their surrender irrespective of whether the convict has 
engaged a counsel or not – This is a means of providing access to justice, 
a facet of Art. 21 – Petitioners, even though in custody, were not apprised 
by the jail authorities of the peremptory dismissal of the SLPs – Had they 
84  
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
been communicated, they would have taken remedial steps without loss of 
time – Petition of petitioner No.1 was restored, however petition of petitioner 
No.2 abated – Urgent steps to be taken so that these eventualities do not 
occur again – In view thereof, guidelines necessary as to the further course 
of action, in cases where after refusal of exemption from surrendering, 
the information is not forthcoming to the Court – Judge In-Chambers can 
appoint an amicus curiae in cases where counsel is absent – Registry in such 
cases could call for a report from the trial judge who may, with appropriate 
directions to the concerned police and the Jail Authorities report the actual 
state of aﬀ airs – Guidelines. [Para 15-19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29]
Information and technology – Digitisation – Availability of upto 
date information for the court as regards surrender and custody 
particulars of the convicts – Need for:
Held: Mechanism to be evolved whereby, the Jail authorities would 
upload on a customised web portal, the surrender and custody particulars of 
the convicts with the corresponding numbers of the Criminal Appeals/Special 
Leave Petitions, such that all up to date information would be available on 
a click of a button. [Para 30]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [2011] 3 SCR 209 : (2011) 4 SCC 
729; Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar and Others [2007] 9 SCR 686 : 
(2007) 7 SCC 623; Bani Singh and Others v. State of U.P. [1996] 3 Suppl. 
SCR 247 : (1996) 4 SCC 720; Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal 
Pradesh [1986] 1 SCR 590 : (1986) 2 SCC 401; Madhav Hayawadanrao 
Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [1979] 1 SCR 192 : (1978) 3 SCC 544; 
Sunil Batra (II) vs. Delhi Administration [1980] 2 SCR 557 : (1980) 3 SCC 
488 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Crl.) Diary No.46699 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2018 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in C.R.A. Nos.151 and 188 of 2014.
85
Appearances:
Anil Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Mittal, Advs. for the Petitioners.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. The facts of this case raise issues touching upon Article 21 of the 
Constitution of India. The petitioner no. 2 – Anil Saha along with petitioner 
No. 1 – Sanjit Saha ﬁ led a common Special Leave Petition before this Court 
on 13.12.2018 challenging the judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 passed 
by the High Court at Calcutta passed in CRA No. 151 of 2014 with C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.