Ravi Kapoor v. The State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi

ORDER

10.09.2010 This petition has been filed for direction to trial court for expeditious trial. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has filed a chart of dates showing that Public Prosecutor was available on almost all dates. A perusal of chart shows that some adjournments were taken jointly by the Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Some adjournments were taken by defence counsel either asking that weapon should be again sent to FSL for re-examination or that he will argue on charge only after receiving the report from FSL. One adjournment was granted at the instance of PP. Now adjournments have become sine qua non of our judicial system. When the trial court refuses to give adjournment.even on fake grounds, the other party approaches the next higher Court and the next higher court normally 'in the interest of justice' allows such petitions and in the procees more delay in trial occurs. Under these circumstances, I consider that trial court always considers it better to give an adjournment instead of Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. letting the case further delayed for several months. No fault can be found with this practical approach being adopted by the trial court. I find no force in this petition. However, it is directed that trial court shall continue the trial of the case with priority being accorded to accused persons in jail and looking into the year of the offence. The petition is disposed of with these directions. SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 acm

D $-10 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 2326/2010 RAVI KAPOOR . . . Petitioner Through Mr Simod Benjamin, Adv. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addi. PP Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DH I NG RA