The Bombay High Court took strong exception to a Judicial Magistrate’s failure to comply with the High Court’s direction to speed up the trial in a dowry harassment case. Court said that it appeared that the concerned Magistrate was not serious in performing her judicial work and the Bench cannot accept the ‘feeble excuses’ given by her for not comply with the HC’s order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court expressed strong disapproval of a Judicial Magistrate‘s failure to adhere to its directive to expedite the trial in a dowry harassment case.
The Court’s concerns were articulated by a Bench comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale, who criticized the Magistrate’s lack of seriousness in fulfilling her judicial duties and dismissed the “feeble excuses” she provided for not complying with the High Court’s order.
“We are unable to accept the feeble excuses given by the learned Judicial Officer in not complying with the directions issued vide Order dated 24th February 2021 and paying scant respect to it. It appears to us that the Judicial Officer concerned, is not serious in performing her judicial work. This requires attention by the administrative committee of this Court,”
-the Bench stated in its order.
The High Court underscored that such conduct warranted the attention of the administrative committee of the Court, calling for potential action against the Magistrate. This directive was issued following the Magistrate’s submission of a report on July 31, which outlined the delays in the trial process. In her report, the Magistrate attributed the delays to a heavy backlog of older cases and staff shortages.
However, the High Court found these justifications unpersuasive, pointing out that despite the challenges, the Magistrate has the authority to take necessary measures to expedite the proceedings. The Bench expressed its concern over what it perceived as the Magistrate’s apparent disregard for her judicial responsibilities.
The High Court also dismissed the Magistrate’s request for an additional six months to conclude the trial, asserting that such a request reflected poorly on the efficiency of the court’s functioning.
Consequently, the Court directed the registrar to forward the report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate to the administrative committee for further action.
The High Court has scheduled a follow-up on the matter after the administrative committee has addressed the report and taken the necessary steps against the Magistrate.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Dowry Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
