Something Is Clearly Wrong…” Allahabad High Court Slams Trial Court for Delay in 20-Year-Old Case

Prayagraj:
The Allahabad High Court has strongly reprimanded a trial court in Prayagraj for its “highly lethargic” handling of a 20-year-old criminal case, observing that the lower court’s conduct raises serious concerns. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh remarked that the prolonged delay and repeated adjournments indicate that “something is clearly wrong somewhere.”

The case dates back to 2005 and carries a maximum punishment of just six months. Despite this, the accused—73-year-old Shreesh Kumar Malviya—has been forced to face legal proceedings for two decades.

Charges Framed After Seven Years, No Witness Produced for Thirteen Years

Although the charge sheet was filed in 2005, charges were framed only in 2012. Yet, for the next 13 years, the prosecution failed to present even a single witness.

The court noted that the trial court kept granting adjournments to the prosecution without any justification, effectively becoming a “silent spectator.” Even the non-bailable warrants issued against witnesses came 11 years later in December 2023, producing no results.

High Court: Lower Judiciary Must Realize Its Accountability

Granting relief to the petitioner, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the hearing within one month. If the prosecution fails to produce evidence on the next date of hearing, its right to present evidence will be closed immediately. The trial court has also been instructed to send a compliance report to the High Court after one month.

Justice Singh emphasized that the judiciary—like all other organs of the state—is equally accountable to the common citizen. The presiding officer, he said, must understand this responsibility and must not ignore High Court circulars regarding the speedy disposal of old cases.

“Adjournments Give an Impression of Something Fishy”

The High Court expressed concern that the trial court repeatedly adjourned an extremely old matter without any urgency, giving the impression that “something is amiss.” The court reminded that aged cases should be disposed of on a priority basis, regardless of any practical difficulties.

By ignoring directives for timely case disposal, the trial court, the High Court observed, has failed in its duty towards both judicial discipline and public trust.