Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MUKTINARAIN JHA AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Decided
23 January 1978
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 602 · 1978 INSC 11

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KRISHNA IYER, J. The s.oocial leave petition had been dismissed. on an earlier occasion on the score that the petitioners had not surrendered to judicial custody which is more or less a condition precedent to seeking the leave of this Court to file an appeal. However, the petitioners point out, in the present petition for restoration of S.L.P ., that although they had offered their person and surrendered before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madhipure, requesting that they be remanded to jail custody, the court declined to take them into custody for want of receipt of judgment from the High Court. Prima facie, this appears to be true in view of annexure A which is a copy of the application put into that court. It is unfortunate that when High Courts deliver judgments confirming the conviction and sentence, there is a long delay in communicating the fact of affirmation of the sentence to the trial courts. A sentence should not be delaye.d at least after it is confirmed by the High Court but when this nappens on account ot the indifference of the administrative side of the High Court in the mechanical process of communication to the trial court it speaks badly of the management side of our court system. We wish that more businesscJike procedures in such matters were evolved so that the rule of law need not suffer a new shock on account of messy-management of judicial business rectifiable by a httle more promptitude and attention.

pp. 602–603, margin F

These observations have relevance to the present case because, long after the judgment of the High Court and the sentences offering to surrender, the court's sentence has not started to operate and the S.L.P. in this Court has had to be dismissed-things which should not have and could not have happened if the High Court's administrative side had been less indifferent.

p. 603, margin B

The petition is allowed and the S.L.P. will be posted three weeks later. Time to surrender ten days. Meanwhile communication of this order, with some administrative celerity, will be made both to the High Court and to the trial court. (The practice direction is to be reported). S.R. Petition allowed. 13-1146 SCI/76

p. 603, margin C