Sensitize Judicial Officers to pronounce judgments on conviction only when they are ready; Supply free copy of order to accused immediately: Delhi HC to District & Sessions Judges
Justice Navin Chawla [22-05-2024]

Read Order: MUNNA SINGH & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS[DEL HC- W.P.(CRL)-1657/2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 27, 2024: The Delhi High Court has held that not making available a copy of the judgment on conviction to the accused persons and taking them into custody is a denial of not only theirstatutory right but also their constitutional right. The High Court has also asked the Trial Courts to immediately supply a free copy of order to the accused.

The petition, before the Delhi High Court, was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for a declaration that the arrest of the petitioners made in relation to a Criminal case without there being any judicial Order convicting the petitioners, was illegal.

The petitioners, facing trial in a case pending adjudication before the Additional Sessions Judge, were granted Bail during the course of the trial. The Trial Court also directed the petitioners to deposit bail bonds in compliance with Section 437A of the Cr.P.C., if not already furnished. On 18.05.2024, when the petitioners appeared before the Trial Court, they were taken into custody, however, no orders taking them into custody were supplied to the petitioners or to their counsels.

The petitioners even tried to move an application seeking a copy of the Order however, the same was also not taken on record, and the Reader merely showed the application to the Trial Court, whereafter, the learned Trial Court stated that the Order will be passed on or before 23.05.2024.On 21.05.2024, in the pre-lunch session, when the matter was called, the judgment on conviction was still not available on the website. It had also not been supplied to the petitioners as the petitioners had not been produced from jail.

The Registrar General of this Court was directed to telephonically seek a report from the Trial Court as to why the order convicting the petitioners was still not uploaded on the website. At 4 P.M., when the petition was called again, the counsel for the respondent, informed that the judgment was then uploaded on the website and has also been sent to the petitioners through the concerned Jail Superintendent.

“The instant petition presents the Court with a glaring infirmity in the procedure followed by the learned Trial Court”,the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla said. Reliance was also placed upon section 353 CrPC to highlight that that the judgment has to be pronounced in the open Court by the presiding officer either by delivering the whole of the judgment or by reading out the whole of the judgment or by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader, signing the same on each page in the open Court, and by making a copy thereof immediately available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost.

It was also noticed that even if the judgment was ready, there was no reason for the Trial Court to put the case for supplying copy thereof to the petitioners on 22.05.2024. “Making available a copy of the judgment, at least, for the perusal of the accused or his/her pleader, is vital as the accused can avail of a remedy of appeal against the Order/judgment of conviction immediately without awaiting the Order on sentence”, it added.

“In the present case, not making available a copy of the judgment on conviction to the accused, and taking them into custody, in my view, therefore, was inappropriate on the part of the learned Trial Court and denial of not only a Statutory Right but also a Constitutional Right to the accused, as the judgment was not read as a whole in open court”, the Bench said.

The Bench was in agreement with the submission that this would, at best, be a procedural lapse and should not vitiate the proceedings/the judgment on conviction passed by the Trial Court. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [LQ/SC/1974/230]. Noting that now the judgment is available with the petitioners as also has been stated to be uploaded on the website, the Bench disposed of the petition reserving all liberty with the petitioners to avail of such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

Clarifying that a copy of the order should be placed before the ‘Inspecting Judges Committee’ of the Officer concerned, the High Court asserted, “The learned Principal District and Sessions Judges of all the Districts Courts in Delhi are requested to sensitize the presiding judicial officers to pronounce their judgments on conviction only when they are ready for pronouncement and, in case where they are convicting the accused and taking the accused into custody, immediately supply a copy thereof, free of cost, to the accused for the accused to avail of the remedies available to them in accordance with law.”