news details |
|
|
| NDPS Court slams prosecution department over total chaos | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 6: The Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jammu, has strongly reprimanded the Prosecution Department after the absence of a Public Prosecutor virtually paralysed the court's functioning, leaving around 80 criminal matters unattended and 12 prosecution witnesses unexamined. The court warned the Director General of Prosecution and Director of Prosecution that contempt proceedings would be initiated against them if an alternative prosecutor was not immediately deputed. The stern order was passed in UT of J&K through Police Station ANTF Jammu versus S.K. Shafi and another, arising out of FIR No. 05/2023 registered under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused, who have remained in custody since June 23, 2023, were produced virtually from District Jail Amphalla.
The court recorded that prosecution witness ASI Gurdeep Singh had travelled from Srinagar to have his deposition recorded. However, no prosecutor was present to examine him.
Around 80 criminal matters were listed before the court, but a police constable attached to the prosecution informed the judge that Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Sharma had proceeded on four days' leave and no alternative arrangement had been made.
The reason cited for the failure was that the Director General of Prosecution had reportedly been stripped of the power to assign temporary charge to another prosecutor during the leave period.
Deputy Director Prosecution Jammu Rajesh Gill subsequently appeared and placed before the court communications issued by the Home Department and the Director General of Prosecution.
After examining the documents, the court observed that the office of the DG Prosecution had given an "out-of-context interpretation" to the Home Department communication. It termed the consequential restriction imposed on prosecution officers a "knee-jerk reaction", stating that the communication did not curtail the authority to make temporary arrangements during a prosecutor's absence.
The court said it was "totally unacceptable" that a court where the State or Union Territory was a party in every matter had been left "high and dry" and rendered virtually non-functional merely because one prosecutor had proceeded on leave.
The judge noted that undertrial prisoners were languishing in jail and waiting desperately for progress in their cases, while several other litigants had approached the court for urgent relief.
Judicial proceedings, the court said, could not be held hostage to administrative "whataboutery", departmental confusion or a power-sharing dispute between the Prosecution Department and the Home Department.
The court further recorded that 12 prosecution witnesses present on the day would ironically go unexamined solely because no prosecutor was available.
The DG Prosecution and Director Prosecution, who had sanctioned the Special Public Prosecutor's leave, were directed to arrange a substitute and ensure that a prosecutor remained available before the court the following day.
The judge warned that failure to comply would invite contempt proceedings against both officers for impeding judicial proceedings and thwarting the court's daily functioning through their acts of omission and commission.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned officers through a special messenger or email. The matter was listed for further proceedings on August 7.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
