Judge Cannot Be Forced To Pronounce Verdict Without Adequate Clarity Or Assistance: Delhi High Court
A man was seeking the transfer of his murder and Arms Act case from one Additional Sessions Judge to another.
Justice Arun Monga, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a judicial officer cannot be compelled to deliver a verdict if they lack sufficient clarity or require further assistance on any aspect of the case.
A Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that when a judge believes the judgment cannot be properly pronounced on the basis of the existing record, and additional clarification or arguments are necessary, the matter must be reopened and listed for further hearing.
“Merely because the learned Presiding Officer had earlier reserved the judgment, he cannot now be forced to pronounce the same, even if he feels that he needs further assistance in the matter,” the Court added.
Advocate M.L. Yadav appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate Richa Dhawan appeared for the Respondent.
Background
The Court made these remarks while dealing with a petition filed by a man seeking the transfer of his murder and Arms Act case from one Additional Sessions Judge to another, requesting that the judgment be pronounced by the new judge.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered in 2008 at the Special Cell, Kalkaji Police Station, for offences under Sections 302, 174A, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The Court noted that on May 31, the presiding judge handling the matter was transferred from the Patiala House Courts to the Karkardooma Courts. The judge initially took the case file along, intending to pronounce the final judgment or order. The case was subsequently heard on multiple occasions at Karkardooma Courts, but the judgment was not delivered and was repeatedly adjourned. Eventually, the file was sent back to the Patiala House Courts.
Finding
The Court observed that the reason for the non-pronouncement of the judgment had been clearly recorded, that the case involved several complex issues, a large number of witnesses, and the necessity of the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) and Investigating Officer (IO) for further clarification.
Dismissing the petitioner’s plea for transfer, the High Court held that there was no ground to interfere in the matter and directed that it be placed before the transferee judge, who would continue proceedings in accordance with law.
Before concluding, the Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal, stating, “In the parting, I may hasten to add that since the trial stands concluded and the judgment at one stage was reserved and kept pending for 2 months, it would be appreciated that the transferee Judge takes up the matter on priority and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.”
Cause Title: Abuzar @ Anta v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates M.L. Yadav, Harish Chand, Anant Chittoria, P.C.Arya, Prashant and Vipakshi Rana
Respondent: Advocate Richa Dhawan