Patna High Court canceled an order that removed a sessions judge from criminal work without giving him a chance to defend himself. The Court said such actions can only be taken by the Chief Justice, not a single judge.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BIHAR: On July 14, the Patna High Court canceled a decision made by a single judge, who had harshly criticized a sessions judge, Kumar Gunjan, for not understanding basic criminal law.
The single judge had also ordered that he be removed from handling criminal cases and be sent for retraining.
But a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy said these directions went beyond the powers of a single judge and were passed without hearing the sessions judge.
The earlier order was given in June 2024 by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri while hearing a criminal revision case. The matter involved Additional Sessions Judge Kumar Gunjan, who had granted bail and took cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — a law about cheque bounce cases.
According to the single judge, the sessions judge made a legal mistake and did not properly understand criminal law.
Legally, a sessions judge cannot directly take cognizance of an offence under Section 138. Only a Magistrate has that power. The proper legal step would have been to send the case back to the Magistrate. Justice Chaudhuri said this was a “basic misunderstanding of law” and showed that the sessions judge had gone beyond his powers.
Also, Judge Gunjan gave bail in the case, but no official order of cognizance had been recorded. Later, that bail was canceled when it was found that the cheques given by the accused were dishonored. This was treated as another big mistake.
In his order, Justice Chaudhuri strongly criticized the sessions judge and said he should be removed from criminal work and given fresh training.
He wrote:
“This Court is constrained to hold that the learned Sessions Judge, Kishanganj does not know the basic tenets of criminal law. Therefore, he should be sent for training in the Bihar Judicial Academy for a period of six months and till then he should be assigned civil cases only.”
But the Division Bench rejected this order. They said the single judge went too far, as these kinds of directions are not allowed under the revisional powers given in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
They said such comments are more like disciplinary action, which only the Chief Justice can decide.
“Such directions travel beyond the revisional jurisdiction. They enter the field of administrative control over judicial officers, which vests exclusively with the Chief Justice,”
-the Court said.
The Division Bench also noted an important mistake: the order canceling the bail was not even passed by Judge Gunjan, but by a different sessions judge.
The single judge ignored this fact in his findings. The High Court also said it was wrong to pass such serious directions without even hearing the concerned judge.
“Fairness requires that no judicial officer should be condemned unheard. No matter how serious the perceived lapse, the principles of natural justice must be followed,”
-the Bench said.
The High Court said that even when a judge is unhappy with how a lower judge acted, the language used in court orders should be polite and professional. To make this point, the Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan.
“Even if a judge feels strongly about the conduct of a subordinate officer, he must remain temperate in language. Judges must use restrained language even when being critical,”
-the Court said.
The Bench also talked about a legal technicality. Usually, criminal orders cannot be appealed under the Letters Patent (a set of legal rules about High Court powers).
But here, the Court explained that they could hear the case because the directions of the single judge were not just about the criminal matter — they had serious effects on the service, posting, and career of the sessions judge.
“The directions in question were not limited to deciding the criminal revision. They affected the service, posting and dignity of a judicial officer. They fall outside the scope of revisional jurisdiction and hence can be examined in appeal,”
-the Court said.
The High Court made it very clear that only the Chief Justice has the right to decide on a judge’s posting, training, or the type of cases he will handle. A single judge cannot pass such orders.
“No judicial order can override the Chief Justice’s power to allocate work, assign training, or supervise judges. That power belongs exclusively to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution,”
-the Bench said.
In the end, the Patna High Court canceled all the negative comments made against Sessions Judge Kumar Gunjan. It also ordered that these remarks should not be kept in his service record.
Importantly, the Court noted that the sessions judge was never given a chance to speak or explain himself, and he was not even a party in that case before the single judge.
CASE TITLE:
The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Registrar General vs Sundeshwar Kumar Das & Anr.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Removing Judge
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
