Prosecution pulled up for not complying with orders

MARGAO: In connection with the state failing to comply with earlier orders directing it to supply to accused Tarun Tejpal all the case documents, Mapusa Additional Sessions Judge Mapusa, Vijaya Pol passed strictures against the prosecution.

TEAM HERALD
MARGAO: In connection with the state failing to comply with earlier orders directing it to supply to accused Tarun Tejpal all the case documents, Mapusa Additional Sessions Judge Mapusa, Vijaya Pol passed strictures against the prosecution.
In an order dated June 5, 2015, the judge found ‘the non-compliance of order dated 3.5.2014 of this court in totality and the non compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.1.2015 amounts to clear violation of the aforesaid orders’.  
The court had ordered the prosecution to supply to the accused documents and material on May 3, 2014 and the Supreme Court had by order dated January 16, 2015 in petition for special leave to appeal of 2015 directed the prosecution to comply with the order dated within three weeks.
The judge observed that till date the prosecution has neither compiled with the aforesaid orders nor is there any order of the Supreme Court setting aside the order dated May 3, 2014 or order dated March 20, 2015. “In the instant application, the special public prosecutor has stated that steps are being taken to challenge the order dated 20.3.2015. Thus, even for challenging the said order dated 20.3.2015, inordinate delay has been caused,” said the judge.
The judge further stated that the conduct of the prosecution showed lackadaisical attitude not only towards the court but also towards the Supreme Court.
“However in the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is given to the prosecution to comply with the orders of this court and the Supreme Court in petition for special leave to appeal without any further delay. The court will inform the Supreme Court accordingly,” added the judge.
The state was represented By special Public Prosecutor F N Tavora and the accused was represented By advocate Rajeev Gomes who were present at the time of arguments and at time of the order delivered on June 5.

Share This Article