Report No. 14

Table No. 5

Statement Showing The Civil Work Done By District Judges, Civil and Session Judges and Civil Judges During The Years 1954-56.

	Civil Suits										Small Cause Suits										Miscellaneous Civil Cases
Year	Pending at the beginning of the year		Institutions		Disposals		Balance				Pending at the beginning of the year		Institutions		Disposals		Balance				Pending at the beginning of the year		Institutions		Disposals		Balance
							Below one year		Over one year								Below one year		Over one year								Below one year		Over one year
1	2		3		4		5		6		7		8		9		10		11		12		13		14		15		16
District Judge
1954	230		234		230		102		132		..		..		..		..		..		1440		5550		5340		1477		173
1955	234		459		334		248		111		..		..		..		..		..		1650		6287		6051		1585		301
1956	359		974		807		336		190		..		..		..		..		..		1886		6827		6620		1695		398
Civil and Session Judges and Other Corresponding Judges
1954		614		621		674		371		190		1159		4425		3911		1467		206		575		1855		1620		645		165
1955		561		767		648		339		341		1673		4246		3914		1573		432		810		2238		1990		781		277
1956		680		518		755		226		217		2005		3801		4521		878		407		1058		2303		2564		610		187
Civil Judges
1954												3031		8821		8611		2954		26		2419		6404		5808		2452		563
1955												3214		9084		9523		2485		290		3015		7022		7202		2261		574
1956												2775		11217		10352		3356		284		2835		7423		7428		1248		582

Table No. 6

Statement Showing The Criminal work Done by The Courts of Session During The Years 194-56

	Session Cases					Criminal Appeals					Criminal Revisions
Year	Pending at the beginning of the year	Institutions	Disposal	Balance		Pending at the beginning of the year	Institutions	Disposals	Balance		Pending at the beginning of the year	Institutions	Disposals	Balance
				Below one year	Over one year				Below one year	Over one year				Below one year	Over one year
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
District and Session Judges
1954	953	3960	3960	3273	1535	105	3758	15021	13952	4343	484	1245	3743	3907	1063
1955	1640	3955	3729	1661	205	4827	14364	13795	4814	582	1081	3470	3642	841	68
1956	1910	4332	4023	197	241	5479	14421	13601	5485	814	943	3345	3155	974	159
Civil and Session Judges
1954	857	2941	2642	1003	153	2550	8447	793	2746	319	617	2311	1995	883	50
1955	11556	3222	3107	1049	222	3065	9178	9426	2529	288	933	2343	2310	876	90
1956	1271	3024	2947	1085	263	2817	8684	8612	2344	545	966	1649	1898	617	100
Civil and Assistant Session Judges
1954	413	983	1047	301	48	213	952	952	196	17	..	..	..	..	..
1955	349	1078	1024	363	40	213	767	826	152	2	..	..	..	..	..
1956	403	1563	1280	530	156	154	740	757	136	1	..	..	..	..	..

Note.- These figures have been supplied to us by the High Court of Allahabad.

There are many sessions trials including those for offences punishable under sections 304, 395 or 397, I.P.C. in which no date for disposal can be fixed for at least a year."

Likewise, there is also a very large number of criminal appeals and criminal revisions.

The principal reason for this disheartening state of affairs is undoubtedly the shortage of judicial officers. It would be interesting to compare the judicial strength of Bihar with Uttar Pradesh. The sanctioned strength of subordinate judiciary in Bihar, which has only 17 Districts, is nearly equal to that of U.P., which has 51 districts with a population and area almost twice that of Bihar. Thus the sanctioned strength of Civil judiciary in Bihar is 344 Judicial officers (16 District Judges, 25 Additional District Judges, 71 Subordinate Judges and 232 Munsifs), whereas Uttar Pradesh has a sanctioned strength of 340 Judicial officers (45 District Judges 39 Civil and Sessions Judges and 266 Munsifs and Civil Judges).

The total number of suits filed in the subordinate courts of Bihar in 1954 was only 1,34,123 a large number of which were simple rent suits, whereas in U.P. the number was 1,50,713 one third of which related to immovable property. In addition the number of sessions cases in U.P. was also much larger. There is one civil judicial officer for every 1,12,731 persons in Bihar as against 1,85,928 persons in Uttar Pradesh. Is it not abundantly clear that the concerned authorities who have time and again failed to raise the strength of judicial officers in spite of demands are directly responsible for the sad plight of the administration of justice in the State?

Back

Index

Next