The Delhi High Court emphasized that trial courts must prepare the conviction judgment before declaring an accused guilty. This directive came in response to a case where a trial court ordered two men into custody before their conviction judgment was finalized.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently emphasized that trial courts should pronounce a decision to convict the accused in a criminal case only after the conviction judgment is actually ready for pronouncement.
In a recent case, Justice Navin Chawla observed that a trial court ordered two men to be taken into custody even before the judgment convicting them. ready to be pronounced. The High Court now directed all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi to sensitize judicial officers to prevent such lapses in the future.
Read Also: Delhi HC: Expansion of ‘Civil Judge Jurisdiction’ in Delhi District Court
The High Court’s ruling highlights the importance of ensuring due process and adherence to proper procedures in the criminal justice system. By emphasizing that the conviction judgment must be ready before the accused taken into custody, the court aims to safeguard the rights of the accused and uphold the principles of fair trial.
The Court mandated,
“The esteemed Principal District and Sessions Judges overseeing all District Courts in Delhi are urged to ensure that presiding judicial officers pronounce judgments of conviction only when fully prepared,”
Furthermore, the judge emphasized that in cases where the accused convicted and detained following the pronouncement of judgment, an immediate provision of a complimentary copy of the judgment must be extended to the accused to facilitate pursuit of any legal recourse.
The case involved a petition filed by two individuals (the petitioners) who claimed that they convicted and taken into custody based on the directives of a trial court, without being provided the court’s written order or judgment.
Upon review, the High Court found evidence suggesting that on May 18, when the petitioners convicted and taken into custody, the judgment convicting them had not yet been finalized or made available by the trial court.
The High Court questioned,
“Given that the judgement was already prepared, why did the knowledgeable Trial Court delay supplying a copy to the petitioners on May 22, 2024?”
This inquiry arose as the conviction order, only posted on the court website on May 21.
The High Court noted that the petitioners attempted to obtain a copy of the May 18 judgment on May 20, but the trial court did not formally record their application and instead orally stated that the judgment would be available by May 23.
The Court found that these actions by the trial court violated the procedure outlined in Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the pronouncement of judgments.
The Court emphasized that providing the accused or their lawyer with a copy of the judgment is crucial, as it allows the accused to immediately exercise their right to appeal against the conviction, without having to wait for the order on sentencing.
Furthermore, the High Court explained that the accused needs to understand the reasons for their conviction and the deprivation of their liberty.
The High Court remarked,
“In this instance, detaining the accused without furnishing them with a copy of the conviction judgment constituted misconduct by the trial court. Therefore, I believe it was not only a violation of a Statutory Right but also a Constitutional Right of the accused, as the judgment was not fully disclosed in open court.”
This statement from the High Court‘s order on May 22 highlights the significance of providing legal documents to defendants before any custodial actions, taken.
The High Court concurred with the State’s argument that a procedural error alone shouldn’t invalidate or annul the conviction verdict. Consequently, the petitions dismissed without overturning the convictions. The Court emphasized that the petitioners retain the right to pursue other legal avenues to contest their convictions.
The Court stated,
“With the judgment now accessible to the petitioners, as it has been uploaded on the website, this petition is concluded, granting the petitioners full liberty to pursue any available legal recourse as per the law.”
The court has ordered that a copy of this order be sent to the Inspecting Judges Committee of the trial court judge who handled the petitioners’ case. Additionally, a copy of the order directed to be sent to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of all Delhi district courts, so that judicial officers can be sensitized and similar errors can be avoided in the future.
The petitioners represented by Advocates Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Renu, Manya Mishra, Dipak Raj Singh, Yashvardhan, and Shivani Verma.
The State represented by Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha, Advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, and Zhavi Lazarus.
The Registrar General of the Delhi High Court represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman and Advocates Shashank Garg and Aradhya Chaturvedi.
Read Order: [Munna Singh and Anr. v. State of Delhi and Ors.]