Delhi High Court pulls up trial judge for not delivering verdict for five months after concluding hearing

The Delhi High Court recently took a serious view of a judicial officer's failure to pronounce a judgment in a criminal case, even though five months had passed since the completion of the trial and the verdict was reserved [Parvesh Mann @ Sagar Mann Vs State NCT of Delhi].

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the judgment was not pronounced by the trial court even though it was ready for pronouncement and listed several times for that purpose.

“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," she observed.

The High Court was hearing a petition seeking the transfer of a Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCoCA) case back to the judge who had reserved the verdict.

The Court noted that after reserving the case for judgment, the matter was listed six times for pronouncing the verdict.

However, the judgment was not pronounced, citing the physical non-presence of the accused persons and because the trial court sought certain clarifications from the investigating officer. 

Thereafter, the judge who reserved judgment was transferred to another place. The successor judge was directed to rehear the final arguments.

The petitioner, an accused, then filed a plea to send the case back to the judge who had already reserved judgment, instead of having the case reheard by the successor judge.

The High Court held that the judge who reserved the verdict was bound to pronounce the judgment after hearing the matter, and that leaving the case to be reheard by another judge would result in unnecessary delays.

“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 stated.

The Court observed that the delay in pronouncing the verdict also meant that the petitioner stayed in jail for longer as an undertrial prisoner.

The petitioner had already spent over five years in jail. To have the case reheard by another judge would only prolong such pre-trial imprisonment, the Court noted.

“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,” the Court added.

Justice Sharma emphasised that the courts have to be mindful of such human aspects in criminal matters. 

“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 said.

Justice Sharma went on to note that the Delhi High Court's Chief Justice has already issued directions to ensure that judges who are being transferred to another place pronounce reserved judgments before relinquishing their charge.

“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,” the Court added.

Further, Section 258 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, states that a judgment in a criminal trial must be pronounced within forty-five days after the trial is completed, the Court pointed out.  

The Court concluded that sending the case to the successor judge to re-hear final arguments would be manifestly unjustified, and contrary to settled legal principles and the right to a speedy trial.

Therefore, the Court transferred the case back to the predecessor judge who had reserved the verdict and directed him to pronounce his judgment in the matter.

Advocates Avi Kalra, Prateek Lakra and Arya Pathak appeared for the petitioner.

Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant appeared for the State.

[Read judgment]