STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSversusANIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER ,

                         [2015] 7 S.C.R. 166


A          STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
                                   v.
              ANIL KUMAR SHARMAAND ANOTHER

B ,               (Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2015)
                            MAY 14, 2015
               [DIPAK MISRA, R. K. AGRAWAL AND
                    PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
c           High Court-Power of- To issue directions on judicial
    side, relating to the procedure to be adopted in criminal trials
    - Scope of - Writ petition for quashing of FIR - During
    pendency thereof, High Court issued directions to trial courts
    not to accept the reports u/s. 173 Cr. P. C., unless accused
D   are produced, and to the police authorities to get installed
    photocopying machines at the police stations for preparing
    the copies required to be supplied u/s. 207 Cr.P. C. - It also
    provided feed back on the suggested amendments in Cr.PC.,
    including one to get dispensed with the procedure as provided
E   uls. 209 Cr.PC. - Even after the petition got infructuous by
    virtue of closure of FIR, the High Court continued to monitor
    the process of expediting the original trials in the State - On
    appeal, Held: High Court erred in law treating the writ petition
    for quashing FIR as a PIL and passing sweeping directions
F   which are not in conformity with the provisions of Cr.PC.
    without there being sufficient data and material - No court
    can issue a mandate to legislature to enact a particular law-
    Moreover, direction for getting Cr.PC. amendment was issued
    when Central Government was not even a party- However,
G   on the-basis of concession on behalf of the State, it is directed
    to expedite the trials by making arrangements for preparing
    the copies of papers before filing of charge-sheet and make
    efforts to apprehend the accused - Judicial restraint- Code
H   of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173, 207 and 209.
                                  166
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 167


        Allowing the appeal, the Court        I   It· 4       A

       HELD: 1. No person, however high, is above the
law. No institution is exempt from accountat?ility,
including the judiciary. Accountability of the judiciary in ·
respect of its judicial functions and orders is vouchsafed B
by provisions for appeal, reversion and review of orders.
[Para 25] [180-G-H]

       2. The concern of the High Court regarding delay
in criminal trials, expressed by it can be appreciated but    c
the manner in which sweeping directions were issued
in the present case by the High Court, cannot be
appreciated, particularly the directions, which are not in    '
conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C. No court can
issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law.   o
[Paras 13 and 15] [173-B-C; 174-A]

  State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Mahindra and
  Mahindra Limited (2011) 13 SCC 77: 2011 (5)
  SCR 509; Pravasi Bha/ai Sangathan v. Union of India         E
  and Ors. (2014) 11SCC477:2014(4) SCR 446-relied
  on.

        3. The High Court has clearly erred in law in
treating the writ petition which was filed for quashing of F
FIR, and had become infructuous, as Public lnterest
Litigation, and issued sweeping directions, without there
being sufficient data and material before if to pass
directions. [Para 26) [181-A-B]

     · 4. There is no requirement u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. for the G
Investigating Officer to produce the accused along with
the charge-sheet. The High Court has not cared to see
that where there are several accused and only some of
them could be arr.ested and remanded to judicial H
168      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 7 S.C.R.


A custody, and others are on bail, how all of them can be
  produced together by the police. The High Court should
  have realized that trial of under-trial prisoners cannot be
  allowed to be delayed, for want of presence of accused
  absconding in the case. [Para 26) [181-B-D)
B
         5. There is no mandate in Section 207 Cr.P.C.
  which requires the police to prepare copies of all the
  papers before the chargesheet is filed. For example, the
  confessional statements recorded under Section 164
C Cr.P.C. by the Magistrates cannot be supposed to be
  lying with the Investigating Officer. So far as requirement
, of photocopying machine at the police station is
  concerned, similar machines could have been directed
  to be provided in the courts. [Para 27] [181-G-H; 182-A]
D
         6. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
  asking the State Authorities to file compliance report, in
  the matter of dispensing with requirement of committal
  of cases by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, as
E provided in Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Central Government
  was not even party in the writ petition in which direction
  was issued to get amended the Code of Criminal
  Procedure. [Para 28) [182-B-C]

F        7. However, the Advocate General for the State
  conceded that all arrangements have been made for
  preparation of copies of the papers before the
  chargesheet is filed so that they can be served on the
  accused persons. It is also accepted by him that all
G efforts have to be made to apprehend the accused
  persons so that the trial can be expedited. Such
  concession is in consonance with the law and that the
  State shall comply with the same so that the delay does
  not occur on these grounds. The State is directed to
H religiously follow these directions made on the basis of
 STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 169


the concession [Paras 26 and 29] [181-D-F; 182-E]              A

   Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1:
   2008 (14) SCR 539; Census Commissioner and Ors.
   v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796 Braj Kishore
   Thakur v. Union of India (1997) 4 SCC 65:1997 (2)           B
   SCR 420; S. C. Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
   and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 279; State of U.P and Ors. v.
   Jeet S. Bisht and Anr. (2007~ 6 SCC 586: 2007 (7)
   SCR 705; A.M. Mathurv. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990)
   2 SCC 533: 1990 (2) SCR 110- relied on.                     C

   Laker Airways vs. Department of Trade 1977 (2) WLR
   234 - referred to.

                   Case Law Reference
                                                               D
2011 (5) SCR 509            relied on             Para 14
2014 (4) SCR 446            relied on             Para 16
2008 (14) SCR 539           relied on             Para 18
1977 (2) WLR 234           referred to            Para 19      E

(2015) 2 sec 796           relied on              Para 20
1997 (2) SCR 420           relied on              Para 21
(2001) 8 sec 219           relied on              Para 22      F
2007 (7) SCR 705           relied on              Para 23
1990 (2) SCR 110           relied on            ''Para 24
     CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 789 of 2015.                                     G

      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2013 of the
Hi9h Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 62 of2013.
                                                               H
    Vijay Bahadur Singh, Adv. Gen., Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,
170         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015) 7 S.C.R.


A Syed Ali Mortaza, Vibhu Tiwari, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Uday
  Pratap Singh, Ashok Kumar Lal for the Appellants.

            Ashok K. Srivasatava, Rakesh K. Sharma, Surya Kant
      for the Respondents.
B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.1. Leave granted.

        2. A substantial question of law has been raised in this
C appeal, as to what extent a High Court can exercise its powers
  in issuing directions on judicial side, relating to the procedure
  to be adopted in criminal trials.

          3. This appeal is directed against the order dated
o 24.5.2013 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
      Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 62 of 2013 which has been
      kept alive even after it has become infructuous.

       4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, Anil
E Kumar Sharma (writ petitioner), was a clerk with ESI Hospital
  at Agra. He was transferred and posted on 23.5.2012 to KRB
  Hospital, Agra. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged
  against him in respect of offence punishable under Section
  409 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Hari Parvat,
F District Agra, which was registered as Crime Case No. 1044
  of 2012. Said respondent filed writ petition (Crl.) No. 62 of
  2013 before,,, the High Court on 3.1.2013 with the following
  prayer:-

G       "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
        quashing the first information report dated 21.12.2012
        in Case Crime No. 1044 of 2012, under Section 409
        IPC, P.S. Hari Parvat, DistrictAgra."

       5. It was pleaded by the writ petitioner that he was
H assigned the job at the Enquiry and Registration counter, and
 STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 171
              [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

had nothing to do with the purchase of medicin~ or working A
as a storekeeper, as such First Information Report in question,
lodged against him was liable to be quashed.

     6. On 7.1.2013, the High Court granted interim stay of
arrest of the writ petitioner, and strangely made certain B
observations relating as to why the trials get prolonged due to
various factors, including the non-arrest of accused by police
while submitting the reports under Section 173 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
                                                                  c
     7. On the next date, i.e. 17.1.2013, the High Court
directed the appellant authorities to file compliance reports
with affidavits, to the above order, as also with regard to the
supply of copies to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
                                                                  D
       8. Thereafter, on 5.2.2013, though the FIR in question was
still under investigation, but the High Court, on its own motion,
referred to procedural issues relating to criminal trials which
were never adverted to in the writ petition, and directed the
police authorities to get installed photocopying machines at E
the police stations for preparing the copies required to be
supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On this, on 8.3.2013, the
Home Department of the State Government filed affidavit of
compliance in response to order dated 5.2.2013 placing the
minutes of the meeting held on 5.3.2013.                          F
     9. Next, on 24.5.2013, the High Court passed the
impugned order wherein even after noting that final closure
report has been filed in respect of the Fl R in question (though
the writ petition had become infructuous), it started monitoring G
the process of expediting the criminal trials in the _State.

     10. It is pleaded by the appellants before us that due to
the general directions issued by the High Court 'to the trial
courts not to accept the reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C.        H
unless the accused are produced, thousands of cases got held
172        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A up in which reports could not be filed in the courts. It is further
  pleaded that the High Court insisted to provide feed back on
  the suggested amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code,
  including the one relating to enabling the police to file charge
  sheets in connection with Sessions case directly before the
B Sessions Courts, and to get dispensed with the procedure of
  committal by the Magistrate (required under Section 209
  Cr. P. C., even though the Central Government was not a party
  to the writ petition). The High Court, vide its order dated
C 24.5.2013, further directed the Principal Secretaries of
  Departments of Home, Finance and that of Law of the State
  Government, and the Director (Prosecution) of the State to file
  their personal affidavits regarding compliance of the directions
  issued by it. It is urged on behalf of the State Government that
D on 19.7.2013 when the appellants soughtfurthertime, as the
  issues required wider consultation, with the Central
  Government, the High Court allowed time only up to 23.7.2012,
  i.e., three days, including the Sunday, to comply with the
  direction.
E         11. After Special Leave Petition is filed before this Court,
  the High Court has moved Criminal Misc. Petition No. 20573
  of 2013 before this Court as intervener, stating in paragraph 6
  that since , respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (accused in Crime Case
F No. 1044 of 2012) might have lost their interest, as the final
  reports have been submitted, certain facts relating to delay in
  trial and importance in dispensation of criminal justice are
  required to be placed on record. In paragraph 3 of the petition,
  the High Court has categorized four stages of delay in trials,
G i.e., (i) delay in completion of investigation and filing of charge-
  sheet, (ii) matters relating to stay of arrest even not only before
  filing of the charge-sheet but subsequent thereto; (iii) delay in
  preparation of copies of the prosecution papers to be provided
  to the accused and delay in procuring attendance of the
H accused, and (iv) delay in procuring attendance of prosecution
    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA. 173
                 [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

witnesses and their cross-examination.                             A

     12. We have heard learned Advocate General of State of
Uttar Pradesh, and learned counsel for the intervener at lenglh.

     13. We can appreciate the concern of the High Court
                                                                8
regarding delay in criminal trials, expressed by it, but the
manner in which sweeping directions issued in the present
case by the High Court, cannot be appreciated, particularly
the directions, which are not in conformity with the provisions
ofCr.P.C.                                                       c
     14. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Mahindra
and Mahindra Limited1, this Court has made following
observations, in paragraph 10, as to the power and scope of
the High Court in issuance of directions to the legislature: -
                                                                   D
"10. Within our Constitution, we have specifically demarcated
the ambit of power and the boundaries of the three organs of
the society by laying down the principles of separation of
powers, which is being adhered to for carrying out democratic
functioning of the country. So far as the legislation is concerned, E
the exclusive domain is with the legislature. Subordinate
legislations are framed by the executive by exercising the
delegated power conferred by the statute, which is the rule-
making power. The judiciary has been vested with the power F
to interpret the aforesaid legislations and to give effect to them
since the parameters of the jurisdiction of both the organs are
earmarked. Therefore, it is always appropriate for each of the
organs to function within its domain. It is inappropriate for the
courts to issue a mandate to legislate an Act and also to make G
a subordinate legislation in a particular manner. In this particular
case, the High Court has directed the subordinate legislation
to substitute wordings in a particular manner, thereby assuming
to itself the role of a supervisory authority, which according to
1
    (2011)13 sec 77                                                H
174           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 7 S.C.R.


A us, is not a power vested in the High Court."

             15. This Court has time and again held that no court can
      issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law.

            16. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and
8
      others 2, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, in paragraph 20,
      has reminded the courts with regard to their limitations as
      follows: -

          ".... This Court has persistently held that our Constitution
c         clearly provides for separation of powers and the court
          merely applies the law that it gets from the legislature.
          Consequently, the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition has
          insisted that the Judges should only reflect the law
          regardless of the anticipated consequences,
D
          considerations of fairness or public policy and the Judge
          is simply not authorised to legislate law. "If there is a law,
          Judges can certainly enforce it, but Judges cannot create
          a law and seek to enforce it." The court cannot rewrite,
E         recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason
          that it has no power to legislate. The very power to
          legislate has not been conferred on the courts. However,
          of lately, judicial activism of the superior courts in India
          has raised public eyebrows time and again ..... "
 F
           17. In Pravasi Bhala~ Sanghathan (supra), this Court
      has further observed in paragraphs 23 and 24 as under: -

          "23. Further, the court should not grant a relief or pass
          order/direction which is not capable of implementation.
G         This Court in State of U.P v. U.P Rajya Khanij Vikas
          Nigam Sangharsh Samiti [(2008) 12 SCC 675] has held
          as under: (SCC pp. 690-91, para 48)

          "48. To us, one of the considerations in such matters is
H     2
          c2014} 11sec477
    STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 175
                 [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

     whether an order passed or direction issued is                  A
     susceptible of implementation and enforcement, and if
     it is not implemented whether appropriate proceedings
     including proceedings for wilful disobedience of the order
     of the Court can be initiated against the opposite party.
     The direction issued by the High Court falls short of this      B
     test and on that ground also, the order is vulnerable."

                                          (emphasis supplied)

      24. Judicial review is subject to the principles of judicial   c
    , restraint and must not become unmanageable in other
      aspects. (Vide King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad
      [AIR 1945 PC 18], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992
      Supp (1) SCC 335 and Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwarath ·
      Chaturvedi [(2013) 2 SCC 1].)"                                 D

     18. In Manoj Sharma v.. State and others3 , while
discussing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has
held as under: -

     "The doctrine of judicial restraint which has been              E
     emphasised repeatedly by this Court e.g. in Aravali Golf
     Club v. Chander Hass [(2008) 1 SCC 683] and Gov.t. of
     A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi [(2008) 4.SCC 720] restricts the
     power of the Court and does not permit the Court to
                                                                     F
     ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive
     domain. As observed by this Court in the above
     decisions, there is a broad separation of powers in the
     Constitution and it would not be proper for one organ of
     the State to encroach into the domain of another organ."        G
     19. Quoting the observations in respect of policy making
by Lord Justice Lawton in LakerAirways4, Chief Justice AS.
Anand, as he then was, reiterated the principle that the 'role of
3
    (2ooai 1a sec 1                                                  H
4
    1977 (2) WLR 234 at 267
176             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A the judge is that of a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle
  when the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts, I
  must neither take part in it nor tell the players how to play'.
  Justice Anand added: -

B          "The judicial whistle needs to be blown for a purpose
           and with caution. It needs to be remembered that court
           cannot run the government. It has the duty of implementing
           the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights
           but they cannot push back the limits of the Constitution to
c          accommodate the challenged violation."

          20. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Census
      Commissioner and others v. R. Krishnamurthy5, has
      observed as under: -
D
           "25 ....... It is not within the domain of the court to legislate.
           The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation
           certain creative process is involved. The courts have the
           jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That
E          too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the
           gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of
           constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the courts are
           not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to
           the policy by way of issui'ng a writ of mandamus. There
F          the judicial restraint is called for remembering what we
           have stated in the beginning ....... "

          21. In Braj Kishore Thakurv. Union oflndia6 , this Court
      has made following observations: -

G          "2. Judicial restraint is a virtue. A virtue which shall be
           concomitant of every judicial disposition. It is an attribute
           of a Judge which he is obliged to keep refurbished from
           time to time, particularly while dealing .with matters before
H     5
          (2015) 2   sec 796
      6 (1997) 4     sec 65
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 177
             [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

  him whether in exercise of appellate or revisional or other      A
  supervisory jurisdiction ...... "

    22. In S.C. Chandraandothersv. State of Jharkhand
and others7, this Court observed: -
                                                                   B
  "34. There is broad separation of powers under the
  Constitution, and the judiciary should not ordinarily
  encroach into the executive or legislative domain. The
  theory of separation of powers, first propounded by the
  French philosopher Montesquieu in his book The Spirit            c
  of Laws still broadly holds the field in India today. Thus, in
  Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364]
  a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed (vide paras
  17 to 19): (SCC pp. 373-74)
                                                                   D
  "17. Before adverting to the controversy directly involved
  in these appeals we may have a fresh look at the inter se
  functioning of the three organs of democracy under our
  Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of
  powers has not been recognised under the Constitution            E
  in its absolute rigidity but the Constitution makers have
  meticulously defined the functions of various organs of
  the State. Legislature, executfVe and judiciary have to
  function within their own sphe(es demarcated under the
  Constitution. No organ can us1.1rp the functions assigned        F
  to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these
  organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly
  following the procedure prescribed therein. The
  functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and
  independence of each of its organs. Legislature and              G
  executive, the two facets of people's will, they have all
  the powers including that of finance. Judiciary has no
  power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power
  to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State
7 (2001)   a sec 219                                               H
178       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A     function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of
      democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to
      restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the
      legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of
      judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social
B     and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the
      legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint,
      the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-
      imposed discipline of judicial restraint.

c     18. Frankfurter, J. of the U.S. Supreme Court dissenting
      in the controversial expatriatior case of Trop v. Dulles [2
      L Ed 2d 630: 356 US 86 (1958)] observed as L·rider:
      (US pp. 119-20)

D     'All power is, in Madison's phrase, "of an encroaching
      nature". ... Judicial power is not immune against this
      human weakness. It also must be on guard against
      encroaching beyond its proper bounds, and not the less
      so since the only restraint upon it is self-restraint. ...
E
      Rigorous observance of the difference between limits of
      power and wise exercise of power-between questions
      of authority and questions of prudence-requires the
      most alert appreciation of this decisive but subtle
F     relationship of two concepts that too easily coalesce. No
      less does it ·require a disciplined will to adhere to the
      difference. It is not easy to stand aloof and allow want of
      wisdom to prevail, to disregard one's own strongly held
      view of what is wise in the conduct of affairs. But it is not
G     the business of this Court to pronounce policy. It must
      observe a fastidious regard for limitations on its own
      power, and this precludes the Court's giving effect to its
      own notions of what is wise or politic. That self-restraint
      is of the essence in the observance of the judicial oath,
H     for the Constitution has not authorised the judges to sit in
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 179
              [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

  judgment on the wisdom of what Congress and the                  A
  Executive Branch do.'

   19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the
   court is to examine the action in accordance with law
 . and to determine whether the legislature or the executive       B
   has acted within the powers and functions assigned under
   the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the
   action. While doing so the court must remain within its
   self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on. the
   action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While          C
   exercising power of judicial review of administrative
   action, the court is not an appellate authority. The
   Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise
   the executive in matters of policy or to sermonise qua
   any matter which under the Constitution lies within the         D
   sphere of legislature or executive, provided these
   authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or
   statutory powers."

                                        (emphasis supplied)"       E

    23. In State of U.P. and others v. Jeet S. Bisht and
another8, this Court observed as under: -
                                    r
    "49. Judicial restraint is consistent with and
                                                                   F
    complementary to the balance of power among the three
    independent branches of the State. It accomplishes this
    in two ways. First, judicial restraint not only recognises
   the equality of the other two branches with the judiciary, it
   also fosters that equality by ·minimising inter-branch          G
   interference by the judiciary. In this analysis, judicial
   restraint may also be called judicial respect, that is,
   respect by the judiciary for the other coequal branches.
   In contrast, judicial activism's unpredictable results make
a c2001i s sec 586                                                 H
180           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A        the judiciary a moving target and thus decreases the ability
         to maintain equality with the co-branches. Restraint
         stabilises the judiciary so that it may better function in a
         system of inter-branch equality."

B       24. In A.M. Mathurv. Pramod Kumar Gupta9 this Court
  observed that judicial restraint and discipline are necessary
  to the orderly administration of justice. The duty of restraint
  and the humility of function has to be the constant theme for a
  Judge, for the said quality in decision-making is as much
C necessary for the Judges to command respect as to protect
  the independence of the judiciary. Para 13 of A.M. Mathurv.
  Pramod Kumar Gupta and others (supra) reads as under: -

         "13. Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to
D        the orderly administration of justice as they are to the
         effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility
         of function should be constant theme of our judges. This
         quality in decision making is as much necessary for
         judges to command respect as to protect the
E        independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this
         regard might better be called judicial respect, that is,
         respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come
         before the court as well to other co-ordinate branches of
         the State, the executive and the legislature. There must
F        be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when
         litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in
         these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor
         for the judicial process."

G           25. No person, however high, is above the law. No
      institution is exempt from accountability, including the judiciary.
      Accountability of the judiciary in respect of its judicial functions
      and orders is vouchsafed by provisions for appeal, revision
      and review of orders.
H     9 (1990) 2   sec 533
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 181
              [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

       26. In view of law laid down by this Court, as discussed      A
above, we are of the view that the High Court has clearly erred
 in law in treating the writ petition which was filed for quashing
of FIR, and had become infructuous, as Public Interest
Litigation, and issued sweeping directions, without there being
sufficient data and material before it to pass directions. There     B
is no requirement under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for the
Investigating Officer to produce the accused along with the
charge-sheet. The High Court has not cared to see that where
there are several accused and only some of them could be
arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and others are on         C
bail, how all of them can be produced together by the police.
The High Court should have realized that trial of under-trial
prisoners cannot be allowed to be delayed, for want of
presence of accused absconding in the case. Learned
                                                                     0
Advocate General has argued before us that several thousand
charge-sheets got stuck up because of sweeping directions
of the High Court from being filed in the courts. However, the
learned Advocate General for the State submitted that all
arrangements have been made for preparation of copies of             E
the papers before the charge sheet is filed so that they can be
served on the accused persons. It is also accepted by him
that all efforts have to be made to apprehend the accused
persons so that the trial can be expedited. As there is a
concession by the learned Advocate General before us which           F
is in consonance with the law and that the State shall comply
with the same so that the delay does not occur on these
grounds.

    27. We also feel it pertinent to mention here that there is G
no mandate in Section 207 Cr.P.C. which requires the police
to prepare copies of all the papers before the chargesheet is
filed. For example, the confessional statements recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrates cannot be
supposed to be lying with the Investigating Officer. As far as H
182          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A requirement of photocopying machine at the police station is
  concerned, similar machines could have been directed to be
  provided in the courts.

           28: In our opinion, the High Court has exceeded its
B jurisdiction in asking the State Authorities to file compliance
  report, in the matter of dispensing with requirement of
  committal of cases by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions,
  as provided in Section 209 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to mention
  here that the Central Government was not even party in the
C writ petition in which direction was issued to get amended the
  Code of Criminal Procedure.

        29. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the
  considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.5.2013
o passed in W.P.(Crl) No. 62 of 2013 by which sweeping
  directions are given by the High Court, is liable to be set aside.
  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is .
  set aside. However, the direction contained in paragraph 26
  above, to the State on the basis of the concession given by
E the learned Advocate General shall be religiously followed.

      Kalpana K. Tripathy                            Appeal allowed.