Prosecutor’s ‘absence’ costs govt Rs15K

Written By Mayura Janwalkar | Updated:

Attending a case before a full bench, presided over by Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar, public prosecutor Satish Borulkar was unable to argue the Pawanraje Nimbalkar case.

Satish Borulkar was attending another case at CJ’s courtroom

Attending a case before a full bench, presided over by Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar, public prosecutor Satish Borulkar was unable to argue the Pawanraje Nimbalkar case, in progress before another division bench of Bombay High Court at the same time.

 Justice SB Mhase and Justice VK Tahilramani on Friday imposed a cost of Rs15,000 on the state government for Borulkar failing to come to courtroom No.43 at the stipulated hour on Friday afternoon. The bench was peeved because the case was scheduled for hearing taking into account the convenience of the prosecutor and the investigating officer.

“We express our dissatisfaction and impose cost of Rs15,000 on the state government.” Justice Mhase said. The court was of the view that if Borulkar was unable to come to the court, he should have made alternative arrangements.

Earlier the court had called for records pertaining to the murder of slain Congress leader Pawanraje Nimbalkar, who was shot dead on June 3, 2006, including phone calls made to him. Justice Mhase even remarked, “This is being done to dodge the matter.”

Additional public prosecutor Poornima Kantharia informed the judges that the investigating officer was present in the court, and had brought with him all the documents pertaining to investigations carried out in the case. The judges, however, said that the case could not proceed without the assigned prosecutor, and slapped the cost on the government.

“I will make an application before the same division bench for recalling of this order,” Borulkar told DNA. He could not make it to courtroom No.43 as he was tied up with another case in the Chief Justice’s courtroom (No.52) on the same floor of the high court building, where a specially constituted full bench was hearing a case, debating police’s power to initiate preliminary inquiry if a cognisable offence is made out.