Recently I had opportunity to interact with the practising lawyers of Krishnagar court, wherein the present status of pendency of court cases and quality of disposal was also came up during discussion. I have also examined some of the case records disposed off by Executive Magistrates in three Subdivisions recently. General observations on the functioning of the Executive Magistrate courts are as follows :-
There is practice in all the courts to accept the petitions under 107-116, 133, 144 or 145 CrPC without hearing by the Executive Magistrate personally, not even going through the contents of the petitions filed. As a result of this, petitions which are not maintainable under preventive sections of CrPC are accepted by Executive Magistrates. There should be examination of records related to land/ property if the land dispute is the cause of the apprehension of breach of peace. Only on satisfaction that the petitioner is legitimate owner or claimant of the property/ land under dispute, Executive Magistrate may accept the petition under relevant sections of law. If the claim is not legally maintainable, order of the Executive Magistrate court can be challenged in the court of law and likely to be set aside.
Whenever, there is order from civil court regarding the title/ status quo, Executive Magistrate can pass the orders for its compliance if proper copies are filed. But in absence of any document or evidence on support of petitions filed, the case may be rejected on its filing stage itself. No Executive Magistrate should allow the court clerk to file cases on his behalf, unless it is personally heard by him.
In most of the cases, a report is sought from police or BLLROs. Thereafter, the case disposal depends upon timely submission of reports. It is also seen that reports of court are not taken seriously by the Police or BLRRO as a result of which justice is not only delayed but denied in most of the cases. Unfortunately, pending reports are not personally pursued by the Executive Magistrate courts. Preventive sections of CrPC are provided for quick and speedy remedy to the public. Delay in disposal due to non availablity of reports or slow disposal by courts frustrates the sole purpose of such magsiterial powers to us.
Deputy Magistrates are otherwise busy with their official assignments, therefore, sometimes can't hold courts as per prescribed schedule. There is also shortage of the Magistrates in some of the Subdivisions. But, there is practice of Executive Magistrates in some of the Subdivisions to hold the court on two days each week due to shortage of officers. It is noted that the dates of cases are assigned by the court clerk as per his convenience without ensuring that all cases filed/ being heard by a particular Executive Magistrates are heard by him only on all subsequent dates. Legally, cases filed/ heard by one Executive Magistrate can't be disposed off by any other Executive Magistrate unless such case is transferred by SDM or DM to another EM.
Cases more than six months are still dragged in the Executive Magsiatre courts, though law does not allow this without specific orders.
In above context, may I request SDOs to review the position in their Executive Magistrate courts and take effective steps to improve the performance. SDOs must hold court on atleast one day in a week for two hours for case filing/ hearing of important cases. Cases from overburdened EMs can be transferred to their own file. A line in compliance is expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment