Shubham Vilas Tayade v. State of Maharashtra
Bombay High CourtMANU/MH/0178/2018Bench: J. A.A. Sayed, J. Sadhna Jadhav
The Bombay High Court held that the 30-day timeline under Section 35 POCSO is directory, not mandatory. Non-compliance with the timeline does not render evidence inadmissible. However, the court must record reasons for the delay. The directions under Section 35 are intended to ensure speedy justice for the child victim — they are procedural safeguards, not conditions precedent to admissibility. Delay in recording evidence does not vitiate a trial if the delay has not prejudiced the accused or caused unreliability in the evidence. The conviction was upheld.