Taking serious view of absence without a legal ground of an accused in a case, a local court has fined him Rs. 2,000 for holding up the court work.
Additional Sessions Judge V K Shewale fined the accused, who was to appear in the court recently but remained absent, Rs. 2,000 and also asked him to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000 each to the two witnesses (both businessmen from Vashi area of Navi Mumbai), who were present in the court for the deposition.
The accused had filed an application seeking adjournment saying he is unable to attend the case due to some unavoidable circumstances.
Doubting the application, the judge noted, “The very ground of adjournment is fishy and thereby unsustainable under law. Hence, I have called upon the defence to proceed with the case, without challenging the identity of absent accused, who prima facie appears to have absented without any legal ground.”
On this plight, it is the duty of every court officer either to keep the accused present or to proceed with the case without challenging the identity. However, defence advocate refused to proceed with the case and harped on adjournment. In such manner, the court work is held up, the judge observed.
“It is the prime duty of every court to guard the right of witnesses who are appearing in court by leaving their daily pursuits. It is common experience that by hook or crook adjournments are sought and thereby witnesses are sent back twice-thrice so that they get fed up with the procedure adopted by courts, due to the groundless applications submitted by defence for adjournment,” he further observed.
Hence, under such circumstances, at least witnesses need to be compensated, so that there can be some relief to them for their attendance in court by leaving their pursuits.
Granting the accused a day’s exemption, the court warned, “On next date if the accused absented, his personal bond will be forfeited, then NBW, recovery warrant notice to the surety will be followed and thereafter case will proceed by keeping the accused in judicial custody till conclusion of the case.”