Patna High Court sets aside order to remove sessions judge from criminal roster and retrain him

The Patna High Court on July 14 set aside a single judge’s direction that had criticised a sessions judge for lacking basic knowledge of criminal law and ordered that he be removed from criminal work and sent for retraining [The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Registrar General vs Sundeshwar Kumar Das & Anr.].

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy held that these directions were beyond the judicial powers of a single-judge, especially since they were passed without giving the concerned judge an opportunity to be heard.

The order under appeal had been passed in June 2024 by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri while hearing a criminal revision.

The case involved additional sessions judge Kumar Gunjan's decision to grant bail and take cognisance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- a provision criminalising cheque bouncing. The single-judge found the decision of the sessions judge legally flawed and sharply criticised the officer’s understanding of criminal law.

As per law, a sessions judge is not empowered to directly take cognisance of an offence under Section 138. That power lies with a Magistrate. The correct process would have been for the sessions judge to send the case back to the Magistrate’s court. According to Justice Chaudhuri, this showed a “basic misunderstanding of law” and amounted to the sessions judge acting beyond his jurisdiction.

In addition to taking cognisance, the sessions judge had granted bail even though no order of cognisance was formally recorded. The bail was later cancelled because the cheques deposited by the applicants were dishonoured.

This, too, was viewed as a serious error. Justice Chaudhuri, in his order, stated that the sessions judge had failed to grasp basic legal procedure and should not be allowed to handle criminal matters until he is retrained.

“This Court is constrained to hold that the learned Sessions Judge, Kishanganj does not know the basic tenets of criminal law. Therefore, he should be sent for training in the Bihar Judicial Academy for a period of six months and till then he should be assigned civil cases only,” the single-judge had said.

The Division Bench said these remarks were disciplinary in nature and could not have been passed while exercising revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court explained that such powers do not include administrative directions affecting the functioning of judicial officers.

“Such directions travel beyond the revisional jurisdiction. They enter the field of administrative control over judicial officers, which vests exclusively with the Chief Justice,” the Court said.

It also noted that the order cancelling the bail to the accused was not passed by Gunjan but another sessions judge, a fact that the single-judge had ignored in his findings. It also said that the principles of natural justice had been violated. The officer was condemned without being heard even though the directions passed against him had serious consequences for his career and reputation.

“Fairness requires that no judicial officer should be condemned unheard. No matter how serious the perceived lapse, the principles of natural justice must be followed,” the Bench said.

The Court said that even strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of a subordinate judge must be expressed in restrained language. It quoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan to reinforce this point.

“Even if a judge feels strongly about the conduct of a subordinate officer, he must remain temperate in language. Judges must use restrained language even when being critical,” the Court said.

It also addressed the technical issue of maintainability. Since criminal orders are generally not appealable under Letters Patent, the bench explained why it was still hearing this case. It said the single judge’s directions were not purely judicial; they had administrative and service-related consequences, which allowed them to be challenged.

“The directions in question were not limited to deciding the criminal revision. They affected the service, posting and dignity of a judicial officer. They fall outside the scope of revisional jurisdiction and hence can be examined in appeal,” the Court said.

It emphasised that judicial officers can only be dealt with through institutional mechanisms laid down by law. Individual judges cannot direct training, posting or removal of judicial officers from a category of cases, the Bench made it clear.

“No judicial order can override the Chief Justice’s power to allocate work, assign training, or supervise judges. That power belongs exclusively to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution,” the Bench said.

Thus, the Court set aside all adverse observations made against the sessions judge and ordered that they be expunged from his service record. It also clarified that the sessions judge was never heard in this matter and had not been a party before the single-judge.

[Read Order]