'Something Wrong Somewhere': Allahabad HC Raps Trial Judge For 'Lethargy' In 20 Yr-Old Case Against Elderly Man; Warns Of Action

Observing that there appears to be "something wrong somewhere" in the functioning of the subordinate court, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh issued a strict ultimatum to the presiding officer to conclude the trial within one month or face disciplinary proceedings.

Briefly put, the Single Judge was dealing with an application filed by Shrish Kumar Malviya, a 73 yr old man, who has been facing prosecution under Section 129 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, since 2005.

The offence carries a maximum punishment of up to six months, yet the proceedings have dragged on for 20 years.

Looking into the order sheet of the lower court, Justice Singh took strong exception to the fact that while the accused has been regularly appearing for the last 13 years, the prosecution has failed to produce a single witness.

The Court noted that the chargesheet in the case was submitted on September 9, 2005, but charges were framed seven years later in 2012.

Since then, it noted, the trial court is 'liberally' granting dates to the prosecution without taking effective steps to procure witnesses.

The Court highlighted that Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against witnesses only in December 2023, after a delay of nearly 11 years, but to no avail.

"This is a very serious matter, where a senior citizen, aged about 73 years, is being victimized by the trial court and prima facie, from perusal of records, it appears that the trial court is lethargic in functioning its duty and doing nothing except granting unnecessary adjournments, sought on behalf of the prosecution. The trial court completely ignored the directions issued by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, it is directed that old cases should be disposed of/decided at the earliest," Justice Singh remarked.

Furthermore, the bench also stressed on the responsibility of the subordinate judiciary towards the common man and observed thus:

"The Judiciary, like all other organs of the state, is equally accountable to the people. The presiding officer of the trial court, therefore, has to realize his accountability to the common man," the Court observed.

The Bench noted that the presiding officer seemed to be postponing old cases in a routine manner, giving an impression that "there is something wrong somewhere”.

The Court added that old cases must be attended to on a priority basis, unmindful of difficulties. It also criticized the officer for ignoring circulars issued by the High Court regarding the quick disposal of cases.

In this regard, the single judge also referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments in Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar to reiterate that right to a speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the applicant was not guilty of the prolonged trial; rather, it was the prosecution that sought adjournments. The Bench stated that the trial court should have closed the prosecution evidence long ago instead of acting as a silent spectator.

Against this backdrop, to prevent further harassment of the applicant, the High Court has now directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one month from the date of production of the order.

The Court has further directed that if the prosecution fails to produce evidence on the next date, their opportunity to do so would be closed.

Significantly, Justice Singh has placed the Judicial Officer on notice. The trial court has been directed to communicate the conclusion of the trial to the High Court after one month.

"Failing which, this Court would have no option except to proceed against the erring Judicial Officer for not complying with various directions issued by this Court from time to time”, the order warned.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the District Judge, Prayagraj. The matter is listed for compliance on January 6, 2026.

Advocate Aditya Kumar Rai, holding brief of Advocate Ritik Kumar Mishra, appeared for the applicant