Rajasthan: Judge Condemns Negligent Oversight and Prolonged Delay in POCSO Cases, Addresses ADG Crime for Urgent Action

Udaipur— The Presiding Officer of the POCSO-1 Court in Udaipur has written a letter to the Additional Director General of Police (Crime) Jaipur, expressing grave concerns regarding the inordinate delay in submitting the charge sheets for cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.

The letter explicitly highlights the District Superintendent of Police's ineffective oversight of POCSO-related cases. A duplicate of this correspondence has also been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police.

Specifically, in the recent case of Government vs. Yogesh Singh, alias Yogendra (28/2023) the court had requested information about all POCSO cases where charge sheets were not presented within two months after the completion of investigations. 

However, upon reviewing the list submitted by the Superintendent of Police, it was discovered that some cases were merely under investigation without the charge sheets being filed.

Strike caused delay in chargesheet filing: SP

While enumerating the reasons, it was explained by the Udaipur SP that in some cases charge sheets were prepared but not presented due to the purported strike by lawyers and employees. Nonetheless, the court has determined that the explanations provided by the Superintendent of Police are both fallacious and unfounded.

In response, the court conveyed that the strike of lawyers and employees lasted for a maximum of one month, during which the court's reception of charge sheets and the subsequent cognizance process continued uninterrupted. 

Moreover, the court even managed to record statements from witnesses during the period of escalating employee strikes. Therefore, the justifications given for the failure to submit the charge sheets to the court are entirely deceitful and devoid of substance.

It was further stated in the court's communication to the ADG that, in cases where charge sheets have remained un-submitted for a staggering period of two years, the Superintendent of Police should be made aware of this matter.

Effective monitoring sorely lacking 

The presiding officer also observed that while overseeing the proceedings, it was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police to ensure that the results were presented to the court within the stipulated timeframe. However, it is evident from the explanations provided in the list that effective monitoring has been sorely lacking. 

The letter explicitly asserts that investigation  officers openly disregard the provisions of Section 173 (1) (a) of the Indian Penal Code, as charge sheets are not presented in court even after two years, let alone within the mandated two-month research period.

In light of these egregious lapses, the court has expressed its deep concerns to the ADG Crime regarding the lackadaisical attitude and inadequate supervision exhibited by the Udaipur Superintendent of Police in handling POCSO cases.