Clarification sought by High Court from Sessions Court
Mumbai : The High Court has pointed out the disparity in the number of cases referred to special courts set up under the Prevention of Sexual Offenses on Children Act (POCSO). Also, orders have been given to the Chief Justice of the Sessions Court to explain this discrepancy.
As per the order passed by the High Court, the Chief Justice of the Sessions Court submitted the details of the pending cases under POCSO to the court. After reading it, the court pointed out that out of the four POCSO courts functioning in Didoshi, two courts were assigned 1228 and 1070 cases respectively while the remaining two courts were assigned 138 and 116 cases respectively. The Chief Justice of the Sessions Court also remarked that this disparity in the distribution of cases was incomprehensible and ordered an explanation.
The court had expressed displeasure over the slow progress of the case filed six years ago under POCSO despite the order. The Chief Justice of the Sessions Court was directed to submit a report detailing the status of all the pending cases under POCSO in the Sessions Courts. The court also said that it is necessary to give some directions to the special courts regarding the handling of POCSO cases.
According to the report submitted by the Chief Justice, there are seven sessions courts in Mumbai city area and six special POCSO courts in Dindoshi. Two of those courts are closed as there are no judges. One of these two courts has 240 pending cases.
Therefore, the court has also asked to submit the information about what measures are being taken to fill the vacant posts in these courts.
Intended to speed up the judicial process
The court said that this information should be submitted so that the necessary orders can be passed for speedy disposal of the cases. Apart from this, the court has also asked for the details classifying the pending cases so that the reasons for the pendency of the cases can be ascertained and orders can be given for their disposal at the earliest. Not only this, the court also ordered to submit an analytical report on the causes of delay in the cases.