HC sought a report from session courts detailing the reasons for delays in cases under the POCSO Act

Case: Azaruddin Nihaluddin Mirsilkar @ Raju Sharma vs the State of Maharashtra

Recently, the Bombay High Court ordered the Principal District Judge, Mumbai Sessions Court, to submit a report detailing the reasons for delays in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre further sought the reasons for the failure of the special courts under POCSO to adhere to the POCSO provisions.

The court was hearing a bail application on the ground of delay in the trial as the accused was arrested in 2016. The court further noted that the present case was pending before a special court in Dindoshi, which has around 240 cases pending on its file. Additionally, the bench also noted the disparity in the distribution of POCSO cases among the various special courts.

Further, the court noted that as of date, only two courts designated to hear POCSO cases were vacant. Therefore, the single bench asked the Principal Judge about steps taken to fill up the vacant posts and to provide data indicating the years from which these cases are pending so that the reasons for the delay can be determined and requisite directions can be issued for their disposal.

The Court noted that only two witnesses had been examined by the prosecution so far, and over ten more are yet to be called. The Court, therefore, directed the Dindoshi court to dispose of the trial as soon as possible in less than six months.