BENGALURU: The High Court on Thursday ordered the director of prosecution to furnish details of criminal cases pending for over four years, by August 25.
Justice A N Venugopala Gowda issued the directive after learning about the delay in framing charges in the Carlton Towers fire incident during a hearing of a criminal petition.
Justice Gowda also directed the court registrar (judicial) to provide details of such cases pending before various courts.
Justice Gowda took serious exception to the delay in framing of charges in the Carlton incident even though the chargesheet and additional chargesheet had been filed in 2010 and 2011 respectively. This points to a lack of coordination between the police and prosecution departments, he noted. Justice Gowda observed that the trial of the case is getting delayed because of incomplete investigation and delay in filing chargesheet and framing charges.
The Carlton Tragedy
Nine people were killed and 60 injured in the Carlton Towers fire on February 23, 2010.
In the petition, the director of the company that was in charge of the building maintenance, claimed that he has been listed as an accused instead of his company. He contended that he was not responsible for the tragedy as he was only the director and was abroad at the time of the accident.
Priest Allowed to Carry Karaga
The HC on Thursday upheld the order of a single-judge bench which had directed the Muzrai Department to allow priest Lakshmisha’s family to perform puja at the Dharmarayaswamy Temple and to carry the ‘karaga’. A division bench dismissed an appeal filed by another priest A Jnanendra against the single-judge bench order. Lakshmisha’s family was asked not to perform puja and carry the ‘karaga’.
HDK Goes to Court to Challenge FIR
JD(S) state president H D Kumaraswamy has approached the High Court challenging the FIR registered against him by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing illegal mining cases.
On Thursday, Kumaraswamy’s counsel argued that an FIR has already been registered in connection with the charges referred to in the SIT’s FIR against his client. There is no provision of registering another FIR on the same facts, he added.