The Delhi High Court directs the pronouncement of a reserved MCOCA verdict despite the transfer of the judge, emphasizing speedy justice and condemning unnecessary delays that undermine the rights of the accused and the judicial process.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, under Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, highlighted the critical issue of reserved judgments remaining unpronounced due to the transfer of judges, emphasizing the importance of timely justice and the procedural mandate for transferred judicial officers. The Court’s decision provides clarity on the obligations of judges in ensuring the prompt pronouncement of judgments and upholds the principle of a speedy trial.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from Sessions Case No. 143/2020, originating from FIR No. 207/2019 registered at the Special Cell, Delhi Police, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. The petitioner, accused of leading an organized crime syndicate, sought the transfer of the case from ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, to the Predecessor Judge, currently posted as Judge of Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, solely for the pronouncement of judgment.
The trial concluded on July 4, 2025, with final arguments heard in their entirety. The judgment was reserved and initially scheduled for pronouncement on July 30, 2025, followed by several adjourned dates. On November 7, 2025, the Predecessor Judge was ready to pronounce judgment, but deferred due to the accused appearing via video conferencing, requiring their physical presence for pronouncement.
Before the next scheduled date of November 28, 2025, the Predecessor Judge was transferred. The Successor Judge subsequently listed the matter for rehearing of final arguments in January 2026, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for transfer of the case back to the Predecessor Judge.
High Court Observations
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that:
- Reserved judgments must be pronounced promptly: Once final arguments are concluded, a judge is bound to pronounce the judgment, regardless of transfer, as per directives issued in Order No. 45/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 and Order No. 48/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025.
- Rehearing after final arguments is unnecessary: Directing a de novo hearing at this stage undermines procedural mandates, delays justice, and places an undue burden on the Successor Judge.
ALSO READ: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
- Speedy justice is a constitutional imperative: Unexplained delays, especially in cases involving accused persons in custody, violate the principles of fair trial and can amount to “justice delayed is justice denied”.
- Transfer orders are binding: Transferred judicial officers are required to compile a list of reserved judgments and pronounce them within 2-3 weeks of transfer, ensuring continuity and finality of proceedings.
The Court noted that the Predecessor Judge had been ready to deliver judgment on November 7, 2025, and deferred only for procedural reasons, not due to pending clarifications. The subsequent transfer and order for rehearing were therefore unwarranted and contrary to settled law.
Court Direction
The Delhi High Court directed that Sessions Case No. 143/2020 be transferred back to the Predecessor Judge, now posted at Family Court-02, Karkardooma Courts, for the sole purpose of pronouncing judgment. The judgment must be delivered within 2-3 weeks of receipt of the order. The High Court also set aside the order dated December 4, 2025, which had directed a rehearing of final arguments.
Justice Sharma emphasized:
“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.”
ALSO READ: Delhi Judge Scolds Prosecutor Over Courtroom Outburst During Riot Trial
Case Title:
Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann Vs State NCT of Delhi
CRL.M.C. 9064/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37956/2025
READ JUDGMENT