This story is from July 12, 2014

Fine absentee prosecutors, says PIL in HC

The shortage of public prosecutors in the trial courts is becoming a major problem leading to delay in trials, it seems.
Fine absentee prosecutors, says PIL in HC
NEW DELHI: The shortage of public prosecutors in the trial courts is becoming a major problem leading to delay in trials, it seems. After a PIL already filed before Delhi high court to provide adequate number of prosecutors in the district courts, another petition was moved before the HC on Friday seeking a direction from the court to prosecution department to “ensure” the presence of the prosecutors in the hearings and also introduce a fine system if they remain absent.
1x1 polls

The petition, filed by a Delhi-based lawyer Manish Khanna, stated that despite it being the duty of the state to provide for sufficient prosecutors, the state of affairs was not improving. The petition stated that due to frequent adjournments in the trials due to the absence of one or the other person led to prolonged incarceration of accused, who are jailed under non-bailable offences.
The petitioner also sought a direction to impose a cost of Rs one lakh on the government.
“It is prayed that the HC will direct the court to impose costs more appropriately in the future for nonappearance of the witnesses and the prosecutor…Direct the investigating agency to assure that the witnesses called do appear in the court, and if they cannot appear then to arrange for the presence of an alternative witness with prior information to the defence counsels,” it said.
Admitting the plea, Justice Pratibha Rani on Friday issued notice to the state and sought its response on the issue on October 14, the next date of hearing.
In his petition, advocate Khanna said that in one of the cases in which he is a defence counsel, the prosecutor did not appear on five dates while the witnesses did not appear on four dates. In the second case, the prosecutor did not appear on 13 different dates fixed for hearings and no witnesses appeared on five dates.
The petitioner, argued that if defence counsel made the same submission and request for the defence witness and the prosecutor was to be kept waiting, “then the same concession would not be shown”.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA