Report No. 14

18. Disposal of ex-parte suits.-

A practice appears to prevail in this State of passing ex parte decrees on verifications in the plaints without oral evidence being recorded. We have elsewhere expressed doubts about the correctness of this practice, and suggested that plaints should be verified on oath so that courts may be enabled to pass decrees on the statements on oath contained in the plaint without having to record oral evidence.

19. Panchayat Courts.-

We were informed that though village courts were constituted under the Mysore Village Courts Act of 1913, the Courts were not availed of only one suit having been filed in these courts. The Mysore Village Panchayats and District Boards Act which provides for the establishment of village panchayats confers no judicial powers on them. We have dealt elsewhere in detail with the importance of establishing Panchayat Courts. We would urge the speedy establishment of these courts in this State.

20. In the reorganised State about four thousand five hundred arid forty-one persons practise the profession of the law. Two thousand seven hundred and fifty-nine persons out of the total number are advocates. It is note worthy that the fee for enrolment as an advocate is the lowest-Rs. 300 in this State compared with that charged in other States.

21. Criminal Courts.-

The accompanying Table (Table No. 8) shows the disposal of District and other Magistrates during the three financial years 1953­54, 1954-55 and 1955- 56. It appears that there has been a fall in the number of cases under the Indian Panel Code pending for over a year. But a good deal remains to be done for bringing the work in the criminal courts up to date. The existing state of affairs seems to be partly due to the fact that the Civil Judges who are District Magistrates do not seem to appreciate that their duties are not confined to court work, and that they have also to perform the important duty of supervising the work of criminal courts-and seeing that it is kept up-to-date.

Table No. 8

District Magistrate & Other Magistrates

		Pending Criminal Appeals					Criminal Revision					Case under I.P.C. & other Cases
Year	No. of offices	Pending at the beginning of the year	Institutions	Disposals	Balance		Pending at the beginning of the year	Institutions	Disposal	Balance		Pending at the beginning of the year	Institutions	Disposals	Balance
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1953-54	51	157	305	290	172	..	68	149	171	46	..	7429	89502	90229	5522	1150
1954-55	51	172	287	322	137	..	46	131	130	47	..	6702	85762	85572	5982	910
1955-56	50	137	105	212	130	..	47	98	85	60	..	6892	84597	86461	4280	748

22. Delays in sessions cases.-

Sessions cases do not seem to receive the proper attention of Sessions and Assistant Sessions Judges. The following summary of Order Sheets in sessions case No. 6 of 1956 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, indicates what happens.

The case was committed on 28th April, 1956, registered on 1st May, 1956 and an order transferring the case to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge was passed. A memo filed on 5th May, 1956, by the Public Prosecutor was taken up on 14th May, 1956 and the hearing was adjourned to 17th May, 1956. On 30th May, 1956, orders were passed retaining the case on the file of the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the case was posted to 31st May, 1956 on which date it was adjourned to 2nd June, 1956 and again to 4th June, 1956 and a third time to 16th July, 1956. The case was not taken up on 16th July, 1956.

The date of hearing was advanced to 2nd July, 1956 and at the request of the Public Prosecutor who stated that a criminal revision petition was pending before the District Magistrate it was adjourned and posted to 21st August, 1956 on which date it was again adjourned to 11th September, 1956. From 11th September, 1956 to 24th November, 1956, the case was adjourned seven times and posted to 7th January, 1957 for trial. On 5th December, 1956, orders were passed transferring the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. Thus the trial of the case did not commence even after seven months.

Similarly, sessions case No. 5 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, was committed on 13th April, 1956 and registered on 14th May, 1956. Fourteen adjournments extending over a period of six months were granted and the case was posted to 1st December, 1956, for trial.

This is a lamentable state of affairs. It undoubtedly results from a complete want of responsibility in the judges concerned and a total lack of supervision. Extreme vigilance on the part of the High Court-and swift and severe disciplinary action in all cases of slackness are imperatively needed to set matters right.

23. Payment of witnesses.-

A regrettable feature about the administration of criminal justice in this State is that the prosecution witnesses are not given travelling and subsistence allowance for attendance in Courts. We have been told that as a consequence police officials find it difficult to obtain the presence of witnesses in courts, and adjournments become necessary. We recommend that immediate steps be taken to enable payment of batta to be made to witnesses. Considerations of justice and efficiency alike demand it.