The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has asked the Director of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct special training session for the presiding officers of the Special Courts dealing with cases under the POCSO Act.
A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Vijayakumar observed that the session should aim to sensitise the presiding officers to the statutory requirement to record evidence of the victim within 30 days from the date of cognisance of the charge sheet and the importance of promptly taking cognisance of charge sheets, including those filed electronically, within a reasonable time and without undue delay.
The court observed that except in a handful of cases, the presiding officers of the Special Courts constituted for POCSO Act cases had failed to examine the victim within 30 days from the date of cognisance of the charge sheet as mandated under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
In view of the fact that, at least in the districts falling under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, there has been a total absence of compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, it is imperative that the High Court issues a circular reminding the presiding officers of the Special Courts about the necessity to comply with the provision in letter and spirit, the court observed and directed the Registrar General of the High Court to reissue a circular issued in 2024.
During the course of the hearing in a habeas corpus petition, the court observed that it was deeply disturbed to note that despite the completion of investigation and filing of a charge sheet by the prosecution which had been taken cognisance of by the Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Tirunelveli, the trial had not yet commenced. The court dismissed the petition.
In a separate judgment, a Division Bench of Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira and R. Poornima directed the Registry to send the judge of the Special Court in Dindigul to the State Judicial Academy to attend training programme.
The court was hearing the appeal filed by a man against the judgment of the trial court. He was convicted for offences under the POCSO Act.
The court observed that the victim during testimony before the trial court had resiled from her statements and said that she had given those statements on the instructions of her father and in the court during evidence had denied knowing the appellant and denied having been subjected to sexual assault by the appellant.
The court observed that there is absolutely no legal evidence to find the accused guilty. When the foundational facts had not been proved by the prosecution the trial court erred in invoking presumption as under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The trial court without understanding the fundamental principle of criminal law had convicted the appellant and thereby had committed a grave error and illegality, the court observed. The court set aside the trial court judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Published – October 21, 2025 07:53 pm IST
