The Delhi High Court criticised a trial judge for failing to deliver a verdict five months after reserving judgment, noting repeated scheduling without pronouncement. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “Judicial proceedings cannot oscillate between readiness and uncertainty.”
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court expressed strong disapproval regarding a judicial officer’s failure to issue a verdict in a criminal case, despite five months having passed since the trial concluded and the judgment was reserved.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the trial court failed to pronounce the judgment even though it was ready and had been scheduled multiple times for that purpose.
She commented,
“Judicial proceedings cannot oscillate between readiness and uncertainty in this manner, particularly after the trial has concluded and the case has stood reserved for judgment for a considerable period of time i.e. for about five months,”
The High Court was addressing a petition that sought to transfer a Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCoCA) case back to the judge who had reserved the verdict.
The Court observed that, after the case was reserved for judgment, it was set to be listed six times for the verdict to be announced.
However, the judgment was not delivered, allegedly due to the absence of the accused and because the trial court requested specific clarifications from the investigating officer.
ALSO READ: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
Later, the judge who reserved the judgment was transferred, and the successor judge was tasked with rehearing the final arguments. The petitioner, an accused individual, subsequently filed a plea to revert the case to the original judge rather than having it reheard by the new judge.
The High Court ruled that the judge who had reserved the verdict was obligated to deliver the judgment after hearing the case, and sending it back for rehearing would only lead to unnecessary delays.
The Court stated,
“Once final arguments had been fully heard, the learned Predecessor Judge was bound to pronounce the judgment. Directing a rehearing of arguments in such circumstances not only defeats the mandate of the transfer orders and the law laid down by this Court, but also results in avoidable delay in adjudication and places an unnecessary burden upon the learned Successor Judge, who is compelled to rehear a matter that has already been fully argued,”
The Court noted that the delay in delivering the verdict also meant the petitioner remained in jail longer as an undertrial prisoner. Having already spent more than five years in custody, a rehearing by another judge would further extend this pre-trial imprisonment.
The Court explained,
“For an accused, especially one in custody, the period after the judgment gets reserved, each day is spent in anxious anticipation of the outcome. To now compel the accused to undergo another round of final arguments before a new judge would amount to prolonging uncertainty and, in effect, would result in serious prejudice,”
Justice Sharma highlighted the importance of considering the human aspects in criminal cases.
She remarked,
“Courts must remain mindful of the human element inherent in criminal adjudication. While procedural fairness is undoubtedly important, it cannot be carried to an extent that defeats substantive justice,”
She also pointed out that the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has previously issued guidelines ensuring that judges who are reassigned pronounce reserved judgments before stepping down from their positions.
The Court concluded,
“Permitting a departure from these directions on the ground of belatedly perceived ‘clarifications’ would, in effect, dilute their binding nature and open the door to circumvention. Such an approach, if accepted, may create a precedent where matters in which judgments have already been reserved are, after transfer of the Presiding Officer, sent back to the successor court on tenuous grounds, thereby unsettling the settled procedure governing pronouncement of reserved judgments and introducing avoidable uncertainty into the judicial process,”
Additionally, Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, specifies that a judgment in a criminal trial must be pronounced within forty-five days after the trial’s completion.
ALSO READ: Delhi Judge Scolds Prosecutor Over Courtroom Outburst During Riot Trial
The Court ultimately decided that transferring the case to the successor judge for a rehearing of the final arguments would be unjustified and contrary to established legal principles and the right to a speedy trial.
It therefore ordered that the case be returned to the original judge who had reserved the judgment, directing him to issue his ruling on the matter.
Advocates Avi Kalra, Prateek Lakra, and Arya Pathak represented the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant appeared for the State.
Case Title: Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann Vs State NCT of Delhi