The observations came on September 17, during the hearing of a case against an accused Rohit, against whom submissions on the cognisance of the charges were supposed to be heard.

The matter was passed over in the morning given the absence of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) and the investigating officer (IO). The Court was later informed that the IO was attending a hearing in the Delhi High Court and the matter was adjourned to the post-lunch session.

When the SPP didn’t appear at the scheduled time, the Court said,

“A request for adjournment is made by the IO to assist the Court on the facts of the case on the ground that he has not gone through the police file and hence is unable to answer the queries of the Court. Moreover Ld. SPP for the State is also not available despite repeated calls. It is already 3.25 pm. A perusal of the record reveals that Ld. SPP for the State had not been appearing in the present case since last many dates and even on the last date of hearing Ld. SPP had appeared only after the matter was adjourned in the morning.”

The Court also noted that according to a report dated September 3, 2021, from the DCP (northeast), the SHO of Gokalpuri police station, where the FIR was registered, had been directed to ensure the presence of both of them at a time.

The order, as a result, observed,

“This Court is not oblivious of the fact that inability of SHO PS Gokalpuri to ensure the presence of the IO till 3.25 pm was due to the reasons beyond his control as the IO had to appear before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, however, once he was aware of the fact that IO of this case had to appear before Hon’ble High Court, he should have deputed a substitute officer, duly briefed by the IO, to remain present before this Court for assistance on facts.

This Court is pained to note that the SHO Gokalpuri has not only failed to depute the substitute IO but also to ensure that the IO while appearing at 3.25 pm, should at least have gone to the case file. He has also failed to ensure the presence of Ld. SPP except on the second call that too to seek a pass over.”

Mobile Internet can be banned under S. 144 CrPC, says Supreme Court

Murali Krishnan

Related Stories