Cuttack, Aug. 20: Orissa High Court has underscored the need for punctuality among persons connected with the justice delivery system, so that the court's time is not wasted.

The court said the lawyers assisted the court in dispensing justice, and it would be impossible for the court to administer justice without their help. The court observed this while giving its verdict on petitions filed in a confiscation case arising out of a disproportionate assets case registered by the state vigilance 18 years ago.

The petitions had challenged the Special (Vigilance) Court-authorised officer's order rejecting a plea for reassessing the cost of summoning the investigating officer and directing them to deposit the cost of availing further cross-examination.

The court, however, saw the cross examination of the officer in the case dating back to 1999 as "an endless voyage for the appellants with an motive to prolong the confiscation proceeding" which had started in 2011.

"Criminal court is not a playground and criminal justice system is not a plaything. Nobody can be permitted to play tricks with the court proceeding and take everything for granted," the single-judge bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo ruled in his August 18 order.

"Punctuality is the hallmark of justice. Whosoever is connected with the justice delivery system should be punctual, so that the valuable time of the court is not wasted even for a moment."

"The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. As a responsible citizen, a lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others in their professional lives. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong-doer in the temple of justice," Justice Sahoo said.

One Narayan Nayak was chargesheeted for allegedly amassing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs 14.68 lakh in the 1999 vigilance case, and the confiscation proceeding was initiated against him, his wife Kumudini and two sons - Padmanav and Santosh. They had challenged the Special (Vigilance) Court-authorised officer's order. Setting aside the order, the high court directed the appellants to give in writing to the authorised officer within two weeks a list of persons whom they proposed to examine as their witnesses and of the documents they proposed to rely while specifying in what way they were relevant.

The court, however, gave the authorised officer the liberty to refuse "if it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice".

"Since the confiscation proceeding took place in the year 2011, every attempt should be made by the authorised officer to conclude the proceeding by end of this year," Justice Sahoo specified in his order.