Delhi High Court: Sending Back Case To Successor Judge When Matter Remained Reserved For Pronouncement Of Judgment Is Unjustified
The Delhi High Court said that justice delayed is justice denied, and any attempt to prolong proceedings by reopening arguments after the matter stood closed and reserved for pronouncement of Judgment is liable to be held vitiated in law.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has remarked that sending back the case to the Successor Judge when the matter remained reserved for pronouncement of Judgment is unjustified.
The Court remarked thus in a Petition seeking transfer of a case arising out of an FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “… in the present case, sending back the case to the learned Successor Judge in December 2025, when the final arguments were concluded in early July 2025 and the matter remained reserved for pronouncement of judgment for five months with the learned Predecessor Judge, would be manifestly unjustified and contrary to settled legal principles, as well as destructive of the right of an accused to a speedy trial.”
The Bench said that justice delayed is justice denied, and any attempt to prolong proceedings by reopening arguments after the matter stood closed and reserved for pronouncement of Judgment is liable to be held vitiated in law.
Advocate Avi Kalra appeared for the Petitioner/Accused, while APP Manoj Pant appeared for the Respondent/State.
Case Background
The Petition sought transfer of a case from the Court of ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Predecessor Judge, who was posted as the Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the limited purpose of pronouncement of Judgment. The Petitioner was the main accused in an FIR pertaining to an organised crime syndicate allegedly being run by him along with his associates. The FIR was registered in the year 2019 and the chargesheet was filed on 17.07.2020. The trial thereafter commenced and prosecution evidence concluded on 15.10.2024. Final arguments on behalf of the Petitioner concluded on 06.03.2025, and those on behalf of the remaining accused persons concluded on 05.04.2025.
Final arguments on behalf of all the accused persons as well as the State, including rebuttal, were concluded on 04.07.2025, whereupon the matter was reserved for Judgment and fixed for pronouncement on 30.07.2025. The Judgment, however, could not be pronounced on the scheduled date and on subsequent dates. On 07.11.2025, the Predecessor Judge was ready to pronounce the Judgment but deferred the same as the accused persons were appearing through video conferencing and were directed to be produced physically on 28.11.2025. In the interregnum, the Predecessor Judge was transferred vide Order dated 18.11.2025. Consequently, the matter case up before the Successor Judge on 28.11.2025, and thereafter stood transferred back and forth between the Predecessor Judge and the Successor Judge, ultimately resulting in directions by the Successor Judge for rehearing of final arguments from 06.01.2026 to 09.01.2026.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “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 said that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) also, by virtue of Section 258, prescribes a time-limit of 30 to 45 days for pronouncing Judgment in a criminal trial, after conclusion of trial.
“… sequence of events leaves little room for doubt that the judgment was, in fact, ready for pronouncement. Had the learned Predecessor Judge expressed, even prima facie, that the judgment was not ready due to any pending clarification, the conclusion of this Court may have been different”, it remarked.
The Court observed that it is difficult to reconcile the readiness to pronounce Judgment on 07.11.2025 with the later position that the matter required further clarification.
“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”, it added.
The Court was of the view that re-hearing a matter of this nature, involving multiple accused and a lengthy trial under a special statute, would inevitably consume substantial time.
“The petitioner has already been in judicial custody for more than five years. After the conclusion of trial, the accused waited for another five months for the pronouncement of judgment. 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”, it further noted.
The Court emphasised that the Courts must remain mindful of the human element inherent in criminal adjudication and while procedural fairness is undoubtedly important, it cannot be carried to an extent that defeats substantive justice.
“In the present case, directing a rehearing would not further fairness; instead, it would cause avoidable delay and hardship to the accused and undermine the finality of a trial that has already concluded”, it also said.
The Court observed that this is not a case where, immediately upon reserving Judgment, the Predecessor Judge found it necessary to seek any clarification and acted accordingly and on the contrary, the matter remained reserved for nearly five months, despite the settled legal position that Judgments ought to be pronounced immediately or not later than six weeks, as held by the Supreme Court, and as per BNSS, within 30 to 45 days.
“Jurisprudence on speedy justice makes it clear that avoidable and unexplained delay, when accompanied by demonstrable prejudice, renders the process arbitrary and unconstitutional”, it remarked.
Conclusion
The Court was of the opinion that the Predecessor Judge was duty-bound to pronounce the Judgment in the said case.
“Sessions Case No. 143/2020, arising out of FIR No. 207/2019, registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the MCOCA, is directed to be transferred from the Court of the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Court of the learned Predecessor Judge, presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment, in compliance with Order No. 45/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 18.11.2025 and Order No. 48/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 26.11.2025. The judgment be pronounced by the learned Judge within a period of 2-3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and directed the pronouncement of Judgment by the Judge within 2-3 weeks.
Cause Title- Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:12)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Avi Kalra, Prateek Lakra, and Arya Pathak.
Respondent: APP Manoj Pant
