Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. set aside a trial court order on the grounds that the Additional Sessions Judge did not follow proper procedure and the conduct of Public Prosecutor was questionable. However this does not mean that the appellants have to be acquitted. The proper procedure will have to be followed and completed.

The Judge was hearing three appeals challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 392, 394 and 397, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The Judge was disappointed with the questions put to the witnesses by the Public Prosecutor and emphasizing that office of Public Prosecutor involves great responsibility and such conduct is not expected.

The Judge also questioned the way the trial was preceded. He questioned the conduct of Additional Sessions Judge, terming the manner as “very disturbing” as he did not bear in mind that the proceedings that had been earlier recorded. He said that “The procedure adopted by the trial court is thus found bad and vitiating the end result”.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction and remitted back the case to the trial Court. Also, the ASJ who passed the impugned judgment and order on sentence was transferred to another jurisdiction. [Gopal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8905, decided on 13.06.2017]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.