In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court addressed an unusual occurrence where a trial court refrained from adjudicating a criminal case on the ground that the timeline prescribed by the Top Court had lapsed. The Court emphasised that such a stance by a trial judge is impermissible and ordered a full explanation from the concerned Judicial Magistrate.
The case arose when the Apex Court directed the trial court to conclude a pending criminal matter within a specified six-week period. The trial judge, however, did not comply and subsequently held that “since he is unable to dispose of the matter within the stipulated timeframe, he has ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter.”
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong disapproval of this approach. “We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed by the learned Judge. If for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed,” the Court observed.
Recognising the unusual nature of the trial court’s conduct, the Top Court directed the District Judge to seek an explanation from the Magistrate and report back within one month. “He has to state as to why and under what circumstances, he has reported that he has ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter and would not proceed any further thereof,” the Court instructed.
Additionally, the Court granted Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik two weeks to file a response and provide reasons for any delay in the trial court’s disposal of the matter. The Registry was directed to transmit copies of the order to the relevant authorities for further action.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Rekha Shaw
Case No: Crl.A. No. 2842/2023
Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Adv. Nilesh Kumar
Advocate for Respondent: AOR Shambo Nandy
Picture Source :
