The Allahabad High Court recently prompted significant procedural reforms in Uttar Pradesh’s criminal justice administration by directing the Directorate of Prosecution, Uttar Pradesh (DG Prosecution) to issue a statewide circular aimed at ensuring prosecuting officers furnish court-relevant instructions from police stations promptly. This development was triggered after the Court intervened in a case where applicants claiming false implication in criminal charges complained of repeated delays by police and prosecutors, which impeded their surrender application before trial court.
In that case, the accused had moved a surrender application before a court in Sultanpur, seeking permission to surrender. The trial court directed the concerned police station to furnish a report, fixing the matter for a subsequent hearing. But on the fixed date, no report was produced by the Station House Officer, and even on the next date the response was not furnished; instead, the prosecuting officer merely requested an adjournment. When the matter was taken before the Allahabad High Court, the police contended the application was never received, while prosecution maintained routine adjournments. Noting the serious breakdown in coordination and its adverse impact on justice, the High Court summoned the Superintendent of Police of the district to explain the lapse.
Recognizing that such delays were not isolated, the Court directed the DG Prosecution to issue a binding directive to all prosecuting officers across Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this direction, DG Prosecution issued a circular on November 26, mandating that prosecuting officers appearing in trial courts must, in every situation, actively obtain the necessary instructions (also called “akhya”) from the concerned police stations and present them before court without delay. The circular was addressed to all Joint Directors of Prosecution across districts, underscoring that any instructions from police stations regarding court orders must reach court promptly and not be stalled due to administrative inertia or negligence.
At the next hearing, the High Court expressed satisfaction at compliance: the circular had been issued and the errant officials involved in the earlier case were subject to inquiry. The Court accordingly consigned the matter to record.
This intervention by the Court underscores systemic concerns that had been previously observed: repeated failures by police officers to serve summonses, execute judicial orders, or furnish timely instructions have hampered the smooth functioning of criminal trials, delayed bail or surrender proceedings, and undermined the right to a fair and speedy trial for accused persons. By insisting on prompt compliance, the Court via DG Prosecution’s circular seeks to improve coordination between police and courts and prevent undue hardship arising from administrative delays.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.