The Delhi High Court has refused to stay a ₹5,000 cost imposed on the State over the absence of a public prosecutor before a trial court, observing that the shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem and nothing on record shows the State taking serious steps to address it.
At the same time, Justice Girish Kathpalia stayed, until the next date of hearing, the part of the trial court’s order directing that the cost be recovered from the salary of the Director of Prosecution.
Background
The petitioner, Maqsood Ahmed, posted as Director of Prosecution, Tis Hazari, Delhi, challenged an October 6, 2026 order of an Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the State, to be recovered later from the petitioner’s salary, because no public prosecutor appeared before it despite repeated passovers till 11:30 am.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing with Advocate Hemant Gupta for the petitioner, submitted that the trial judge imposed the cost despite being told about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional prosecutors. He added that the issue of the shortage is already pending before a Division Bench of the High Court, and that the petitioner could not take appropriate action since several public prosecutors were on leave.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kathpalia observed that “The impugned order is a conspicuous expression of anguish of the trial judge, who faces pressure of overflowing dockets and expectation of the superior courts as regards expeditious disposal of the bail matters and even trials.”
However, the Court found that directing recovery of the cost from the petitioner’s salary, without any specific observation on malfeasance or misfeasance, would prima facie not be proper.
On the request to stay the cost against the State as well, the Court noted that the senior counsel appeared for the petitioner and not for the State. It observed that “shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem, which severely impacts the disposals of criminal trials and even bail matters.” Noting that the State had not even challenged the order, the Court declined to stay the cost imposed on it.
Next Date
Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya, assisted by IO/SI Ankit, accepted notice and was allowed to file a detailed reply or status report at least one week before the next date. The matter will be listed on February 3, 2027.
Case Title: Maqsood Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 7915/2026
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: October 27, 2026
