Leading Supreme Court Judgment mandating completion of the trial in POCSO Act case in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act.

 It is submitted by Mr. Srivastava that in both the States, the cases are pending at the evidence stage beyond one year. We are absolutely conscious that Section 35(2) of the Act says "as far as possible". Be that as it may, regard being had to the spirit of the Act, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions:

(i) The High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by the Special Courts and the presiding officers of the said courts are sensitized in the matters of child protection and psychological response.

(ii) The Special Courts, as conceived, be established, if not already done, and be assigned the responsibility to deal with the cases under the POCSO Act.

(iii) The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act.

(iv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The High Courts where three Judges are not available the Chief Justices of the said courts shall constitute one Judge Committee.

(v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the States shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses are produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts.

(vi) Adequate steps shall be taken by the High Courts to provide child friendly atmosphere in the Special Courts keeping in view the provisions of the POCSO Act so that the spirit of the Act is observed. {Para 23}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 of 2018 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Decided On: 01.05.2018

Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, C.J.I.

Citation: 2018 INSC 433,MANU/SC/0489/2018.

Print Page

'Feeble excuses'; Bombay HC directs administrative action against Judicial Magistrate for non-compliance with order for expeditious disposal of trial

 2.2) In the report, the learned JMFC has stated that the said casecame up before her for the first time on 30th January 2023 and at that time, the concerned clerk did not point out to her that the said case is made time bound by the High Court. One of the reason given by the learned Judicial Officer is that, she is dealing with huge pendency of 10 years plus cases both Criminal and Civil and therefore, she has to give attention to each and every matter on priority basis. That, there is insufficient staff to her court and it goes on frequent leave.

3) Perusal of the report clearly indicates that even though the present case was placed before the learned Judicial Officer for the first time on 30th January 2022, she did not adopt necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the said case by taking recourse of the provisions of Cr. P.C. for giving complete effect to the Order dated 24th February 2021 passed by this Court.

4) Numerous other excuses are also given in the said report for not completing the said trial within the stipulated period. Even if the complainant was not cooperating with the trial court, the trial court has powers to apply provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to take the said case to its logical end, as per the directions issued by this Court. The offence alleged against Applicant is under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.(page-4). As per the report itself, there are in all 9 witnesses.

5) Despite the said fact, learned Judicial Officer has now sought

an extension of 6 months to dispose of the said case.

6) We are unable to accept the feeble excuses given by the learned Judicial Officer in not complying with the directions issued vide Order dated 24th February 2021 and paying scant respect to it. It appears to us that the Judicial Officer concerned, is not serious in performing her judicial work. This requires attention by the learned Administrative Committee of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2021

Chandragupt Rambadan Chauhan  Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

 DATE : 9 th  AUGUST, 2024.

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by lower court when case is ordered to be disposed off in time bound as per order of higher court?

  In an order in IA.No.7588/2009 in WP(C).

No.396/2009 this Court reminded the lower court that, the

time limits are fixed by superior courts in their anxiety to

ensure expeditious disposal. All subordinate courts must

realise that between the interests of justice and time limit

prescribed, it is the interests of justice that shall have to

prevail. If the trial court finds that justice in the given case

cannot be achieved within the prescribed time limit, it is for

such court to apply for extension of time. Time limits are

not fixed so that the cases can be disposed of somehow.

      8.    It is ignoring that, the learned Magistrate refused

to have the petition disposed on merits with a reason that

this Court has prescribed time limit for disposal of the case.

It is not at all a good reasoning and it can no way be

allowed.     The reasoning that altering of charge would

prolong the trial is also erroneous and not sustainable. A

request made by the prosecutor to alter the charge with an

allegation that the charge is not in accordance with the

report of the investigating officer could be dismissed, only if

the allegation is not true. A trial without a proper charge

would only lead to miscarriage of justice.   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3162 of 2009()


AKBAR.A., PUTHEN VEEDU, NORTH MSM
                   
                        Vs
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                     

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :24/11/2009

Citation: 2010CriLJ2555, ILR2010(2)KeralaKER, ILR2010(2)Kerala875, 2010 (1) KHC 738, 2010(1)KLT714

Print Page