COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae for the petitioner has placed on record the suggestions given by him to improve and strengthen the functioning of the Prosecutors and the Prosecution Agencies. Learned amicus curiae further submits that he himself had visited the District Courts Saket, Patiala House Courts, District Courts Karkardooma to personally see the functioning of these public prosecutors, the infrastructure facilities and other facilities available to them in the discharge of their day to day duties. Learned amicus curiae also submits that vide directions given by this court, the public prosecutors were provided with the facility of Laptops and pursuant thereto all the public prosecutors did purchase a Laptop within the financial limit of Rs.35,000/-, but shockingly they were without any facility of internet connection or for that matter various legal sites were also not made accessible. Learned amicus curiae submits that the State has not even renewed the subscription of online journal and due to this non renewal, these public prosecutors cannot have access to the same or any other online journal. Mr. Virmani, learned amicus curiae also submits that one internet connection with the facility of Wi-Fi in every court complex can sufficiently cater to the needs of all the public prosecutors and through internet they can have access to all the free sites of law journals at least. Mr. Virmani, learned amicus curiae also submits that earlier they used to be provided space in every court of Metropolitan Magistrate and Session Courts, exclusively meant for public prosecutors but on his visit this time, he found that no such space is dedicated to the public prosecutors. Learned amicus curiae also submits that these public prosecutors have not been able to keep their files in safe custody due to the paucity of space, and insufficiency of racks or cabinets. He further states that for want of proper safe keeping of files, which gets lost often and due to this lack, adjournments are being sought frequently by the public prosecutors, which ultimately leads in delaying the criminal trials. Learned amicus curiae further submits that the prosecutors have not been provided with sufficient stationery which is necessary for conducting their day to day work. Learned amicus curiae also submits that even the printers which were made available to the Prosecution Branch were not found functioning for want of cartridge and maintenance.

(2.) Learned amicus curiae also submits that the prosecutors have been provided inadequate sitting area in the office block located to them in various District Courts and in one cabin, 2 to 3 public prosecutors sit which makes it quite difficult for them to deal with their cases properly. Learned amicus curiae further submits that earlier, one official vehicle was provided to each of the court complex for official use of public prosecutors as they were required to attend meetings in the Headquarters of Tis Hazari Courts but recently, since last 3-4 months, this facility has also been withdrawn.

(3.) Copy of the report submitted by learned amicus curiae has been supplied to Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCT of Delhi. After having gone through the said suggestions, we find that the suggestions are invaluable to strengthen the working of the public prosecutors and therefore, we direct the GNCT of Delhi to take into consideration the said suggestions submitted by Mr. Virmani and give a response thereto before the next date of hearing by way of an affidavit to be filed through Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi.