[Delhi Riots] Imposing costs for seeking adjournment unwarranted: Delhi court

Imposing costs for seeking adjournment is unwarranted particularly when there was a reasonable ground to seek adjournment, a Delhi Court recently observed while setting aside an order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) imposing ₹25,000 costs on Delhi government for seeking adjournment [SHO, PS Bhajanpura, Delhi v. Neeraj]..The observation was made by Principle District and Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar, Karkardooma court, Delhi.Judge Kumar held that it is the basic law that if the adjournment is sought on justifiable ground, as was the case in the present matter, it ought to be granted."The imposition of cost with subsequent observations/direction, is unwarranted and uncalled for and the impugned order deserves to be set aside," the Court ordered..The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by the State against the order trial court. The State was to directed to pay the costs to all 7 accused persons in a Delhi Riots case in equal proportion. Further, the trial court had directed the Commissioner of Police, to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation/prosecution of the cases.It had also directed Union Home Secretary to order an inquiry to fix the responsibility for imposition of cost and deduction of the same from the salary of the responsible officer, under intimation to the court..The Special public prosecutor submitted before the Sessions Judge that the order needs to be set aside as the trial court had failed to take into consideration that awarding cost in favour of the accused amounts to compensation and would give an impression that the accused are being rewarded, while the State agency is being reprimanded.It was also argued that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction..This was opposed by the counsel for the accused persons stating that the trial court has ordered costs after observing the conduct of the investigating agency. It raises serious question on the working of the Delhi Police, which is causing undue delay in adjudication of the cases pertaining to North East riots, it was contended. .The Court noted that the costs was imposed on the State on account of delay in moving appropriate application by the Investigating Officer (IO). The Court was of the opinion that the imposition of costs was not justified as the IO was supposed to comply with the direction of the Sessions Court..Further it was observed that the trial court had failed to appreciate that the further investigation is a prerogative of the police and it can be done at any stage.In light of the above, the Court set aside order passed by the CMM that imposed cost on the State and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to ensure expeditious trial of the cases relating to Delhi riots and sensitize subordinates police officials, so that there is no delay..[Read Order]