The Ponda Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court has rejected an application filed by Ponda Police seeking condonation of the delay in filing a chargesheet against MGP leader and Minister Sudin Dhavalikar in a case registered in 2022 for allegedly violating the District Magistrate’s order on wearing protective masks and maintaining social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ironically, the matter remained pending for arguments for nearly three years, yet the actual arguments from both sides were finally concluded in just a couple of hours on the same day.
On January 24, 2022, Ponda Police registered an FIR against Sudin Dhavalikar, then the MGP candidate from the Marcaim constituency, for allegedly gathering with supporters to file his nomination papers. According to the prosecution, the gathering violated social-distancing norms, and those present were not wearing protective masks, in contravention of an order issued by the District Magistrate of South Goa to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
Ponda Police failed to file the chargesheet within the stipulated period of six months. After a delay of approximately one year and two months, the police filed an application before the JMFC Court on October 12, 2023, seeking condonation of the delay.
According to the prosecution, the chargesheet was ready but could not be filed on time due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the investigating officer’s engagement in bandobast duties.
The application seeking condonation of delay was filed on October 12, 2023. The court issued notice to Sudin Dhavalikar at the very first hearing on October 19, 2023.
At the second hearing on December 28, 2023, the notice issued to Dhavalikar had not been returned. However, he filed an application seeking a copy of the condonation-of-delay application, which was supplied to him on the same day.
At the third hearing on January 17, 2024, the matter was adjourned to February 17, 2024, due to the transfer of the presiding judge.
At the fourth hearing on February 17, 2024, the matter was adjourned to March 21, 2024, citing the busy schedule of the in-charge presiding judge.
At the fifth hearing on March 21, 2024, Dhavalikar filed his reply. A copy was furnished to the public prosecutor, and the matter was adjourned to April 29, 2024, for arguments.
At the sixth hearing on April 29, 2024, arguments could not take place due to the absence of the public prosecutor. The matter was adjourned to July 3, 2024.
At the seventh hearing on July 3, 2024, the counsel representing Dhavalikar orally sought more time to present arguments. The request was granted, and the matter was adjourned to August 19, 2024.
At the eighth hearing on August 19, 2024, Dhavalikar’s counsel again sought time to present arguments. The court granted the request and adjourned the matter to October 14, 2024.
At the ninth hearing on October 14, 2024, the in-charge presiding judge was on one day of earned leave, and the matter was adjourned to November 14, 2024.
At the tenth hearing on November 14, 2024, no one appeared on behalf of Dhavalikar. The court adjourned the matter to January 27, 2025.
At the eleventh hearing on January 27, 2025, Dhavalikar’s counsel orally sought more time. The court granted the request and adjourned the matter to April 9, 2025.
At the twelfth hearing on April 9, 2025, an advocate holding a brief for Dhavalikar’s main counsel orally sought time to present arguments. The request was granted, and the matter was adjourned to July 17, 2025.
At the thirteenth hearing on July 17, 2025, a new advocate filed a vakalatnama to represent Dhavalikar, and the matter was adjourned to October 13, 2025, for arguments.
At the fourteenth hearing on October 13, 2025, the matter was adjourned to November 28, 2025, for arguments.
At the fifteenth hearing on November 28, 2025, the matter was again adjourned, this time to March 9, 2026, for arguments.
At the sixteenth hearing on March 9, 2026, the public prosecutor was absent, and the matter was adjourned to July 9, 2026, for arguments.
At the seventeenth hearing on July 9, 2026, no one appeared on behalf of Dhavalikar. The matter was adjourned to August 31, 2026, for arguments.
At the eighteenth hearing on August 31, 2026, Dhavalikar’s advocate filed an application seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. The assistant public prosecutor (APP) endorsed the application, and the court decided to hear the arguments without granting any further adjournments. The matter was accordingly fixed for arguments on September 2, 2026.
At the nineteenth hearing on September 2, 2026, the additional public prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer wished to file an additional affidavit. The court granted time for the same and adjourned the matter to September 9, 2026, for arguments.
Finally, at the twentieth hearing on September 9, 2026, arguments were presented by both the prosecution and the respondent same day, following which the court reserved its verdict.
On October 15, 2026, nearly three years after the application was filed, the court pronounced its verdict and rejected the police application seeking condonation of the approximately 14-month delay in filing the chargesheet.
