Ahmedabad: About 53 years after it was first institutionalized in 1968, the City Civil Court last week waste criminal cases downcast delayed because two defendants could not be traced half a century later.
In this case, three people – Trilokchand Sharma, Biharilal Sharma and Ramsneet Subadar – were ordered by police Shaherkotda in 1968 under 57 years, 414 and 114 IPC, for criminal violations of trust after being entrusted to the property and to help in concealment and to help property and stolen reduction.
They were given a guarantee by the court.
In 1969, when the court called them for the trial, only Trilokchand appeared.
There is no information about the existence of Sharma and Subarar.
In the absence of two accused, the court separated the Trilokchand case and ended in the same year on June 2, 1969.
On the other hand, the court continued to issue a warrant that was not loud and even stated that was accused of being absconders.
However, they still cannot be traced and this case entered the ‘Dormant Case’ section of the file in 2002.
Because more than 50 years passed after submitting a case, the Principal Judge Session Shubhada Baxi initiated the disposal process.
He asked the public prosecutor to improve the problem of the case that was long waiting for this and for the disposal.
Therefore, the public prosecutor Sudhir Brahmbhatt on August 5 wrote to Ahmedabad district judges and asked him to use the government’s strength under the part 321 CRPC to attract the case.
The prosecutor told district judges that efforts were sufficient to secure the presence of the two defendants in court, but they did not produce any results.
There is no possibility of useful results even in the future too, especially when people accused of escaping for more than half a century.
In addition, criminal charges said in cases require only seven years punishment.
District collectors received proposals to draw cases on 12 August.
The General Prosecutor’s Office thus submitted an application in court for the withdrawal of the case.
On August 17, the Principal Judge considered to accept a proposal to withdraw the case and discard the case of the session.
The court noted that there was no possibility of tracing people accused of in the future and there was no point in continuing the criminal process.