Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday reprimanded the Maharashtra government for delays in cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, and issued a series of time-bound directions to ensure that trial courts expedite proceedings in these matters.
As many as 478 cases involving MPs and MLAs are still pending trials in Maharashtra, according to the latest data submitted by the state government’s Directorate of Prosecution. These include cases listed for arguments, recording evidence, framing of charges, and recording the accused’s statements.
A division bench of chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice NJ Jamadar noted that these figures differed from the high court’s own list because pending revision applications were not included in the prosecution’s compilation.
After examining the data, the bench observed that a significant number of cases were stalled at crucial stages. These include: 47 that are awaiting the framing of charges; 74 that are posted for recording evidence; 70 where evidence is part-heard; 32 that are fixed for judgment; 45 that are listed for hearing interim applications; and 132 cases that are pending only because the presence of the accused could not be secured.
To break this logjam, the high court issued detailed instructions to trial courts handling these cases: matters kept for arguments must be concluded within 30 days, and judgments should be delivered without delay; cases awaiting the accused’s statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be listed within three weeks unless an earlier date already exists; if a date beyond this three-week window has been given, trial courts must issue a notice to the accused’s counsel and reschedule the hearing to fall within the mandated period.
{{/usCountry}}To break this logjam, the high court issued detailed instructions to trial courts handling these cases: matters kept for arguments must be concluded within 30 days, and judgments should be delivered without delay; cases awaiting the accused’s statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be listed within three weeks unless an earlier date already exists; if a date beyond this three-week window has been given, trial courts must issue a notice to the accused’s counsel and reschedule the hearing to fall within the mandated period.
{{/usCountry}}For cases awaiting the framing of charges, the court directed that it should be completed within four weeks, and video-conferencing may be used if the accused is in jail. For matters stalled because the accused has not been produced in court, trial courts must take all necessary steps, including initiating proceedings against sureties. In matters where proceedings have been stayed, the state has been asked to move to have the stay lifted or seek suitable directions.
The high court emphasised that the purpose of compiling this data was not merely statistical but aimed at effectively monitoring trial progress in compliance with a 2021 Supreme Court directive on prioritising cases against lawmakers.
The bench has sought a compliance report from the state government on these instructions by December 19, when the matter will be taken up again.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.