North East Delhi riots: Court refuses to waive cost noting conduct of accused

New Delhi [India], January 29 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court has refused to waive a cost imposed on an accused in the North East Delhi riots case after noting his conduct.
"If a party does not believe in giving due respect to the orders of the court or mandate of law, he is not entitled to seek any lenient approach from the court of law," the Court said.
On January 20, the court granted the accused an additional opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witness constable Gyan Singh, subject to payment of cost and filing PF within two working days.
While dismissing the plea, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said that the record of this case and the order dated January 20 show that the conduct of the applicant had not been good in respect of availing the opportunities to cross-examine the witness or in respect of making the correct plea before the court for seeking deferment of cross-examination.
"The court also noted its disappointment over the lack of professionalism of the learned counsel for this applicant," ASJ Pramachala said in an order issued on January 24, 2024.
The court was dealing with an application moved by accused Akil Ahmed alias Papad, in a riots case lodged at Dayalpur police station in 2020.
"I do not find the applicant entitled to any further leniency. As far as the plea of poverty is concerned, there is no limit to taking such a plea by any litigant," ASJ Pramachala said.
"If a litigant or his counsel opt to act as per their own sweet will and their whims, in defiance of the mandate of law (herein u/s. 309 Cr.P.C.), he cannot be entertained on the grounds of such a plea of poverty. Hence, this application is rejected," the court ordered.
The court said that there has to be a limit of taking lenient approach. The latest show of unprofessionalism is that despite having knowledge of time limit of two working days to take steps for summoning of Gyan Singh, so as to cross-examine him, present application was filed by same counsel for applicant at the end point of that given time period i.e. in the evening of January 23.
"This shows the mind-set of the applicant and ld. counsels, as to how much regard they had for the orders passed by the court. If a party does not believe in giving due respect to the orders of the court or mandate of law, he is not entitled to seek any lenient approach from the court of law," the court observed.
Counsel for the accused submitted that he is a poor person who is earning only Rs 12,000 -15,000 per month and is the sole breadwinner of his family, and therefore, he is incapable of paying this cost.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey submitted that the accused's conduct had not been good.
"First of all, he took a false plea before the court on July 3 last year to seek adjournment. Thereafter, he did not opt to comply with the directions. If the applicant is affording senior counsel with his team, then it cannot be said that he cannot afford to pay the cost," SPP Pandey added.