Recently, Bombay HC directed the Sessions Court to submit a report and analyze the causes for delay in concluding the POCSO cases and why concerned courts are unable to adhere to the mandate.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre opined that “Since the issue is being dealt with in this application, let the learned Principal Judge also give bifurcation of the years from which the cases are pending so that the reasons thereof can be ascertained and direction can be issued by this Court so that trials can be expedited.”
In this case, the Principal Judge has submitted a report dated 02.07.2022. As per the said Report, there are 7 designated POCSO Courts in the City Civil Court and six POCSO Courts at Dindoshi, out of which two courts are vacant.
The bench after looking at the pendency of The POCSO cases stated that “the Special Courts are also under severe pressure of concluding the trials and therefore it is not uncommon as far as this case is concerned that in Special Case No.420/2016, the trial is not yet concluded. It is informed that the said trial is pending in Dindoshi Court, where the learned Judge is seized of 240 POCSO cases.”
The High Court while going through the information supplied by the Principal Judge, noted the allotment of 1228 cases with CR No.11 and 1070 cases with CR No.12. In contrast, CR No.9 is shown to have 138 cases and CR No.10 is having 116 cases. The bench did not understand the disparity in the distribution of cases and ordered the learned Principal Judge to explain the same.
Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join
In view of the above, The High Court directed the learned Principal Judge to submit a further report and analyze causes for delay in concluding the POCSO cases and why concerned courts are unable to adhere to the mandate, provided under the special statute keeping in mind objective underlining the same being less inconvenience and humiliation to be faced by the victim and by ensuring speedy trial.
The High Court listed the matter on 29.08.2022.
Case Title: Azaruddin Nihaluddin Mirsilkar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre
Citation: BAIL APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2021