Patna High Court: The present revision was directed against the judgment and order of affirmation passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd Court at Samastipur on 28-6-2016, whereby the Appellate Court maintained the order passed by the trial court, of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and sentence of petitioner to suffer imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs 1,000 with default clause for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Bibek Chaudhuri, J.*, directed two judicial officers to pay compensation of Rs 100 each to petitioner as he was made to suffer a criminal trial which was not maintainable against him and was compelled to be confined in the correctional home at different points of time.
The Court took note of the petition of complaint and observed that petitioner was not a relative of the husband of the complainant as provided in Section 498-A of IPC. The Court noted that it was clearly stated by the complainant that petitioner who was arrayed as Accused 4 was an advisor of other accused persons.
The Court observed that petitioner was made to suffer a criminal trial which was not maintainable against him and was compelled to be confined in the correctional home at different points of time. The Court thus opined that petitioner should be compensated as he was made to suffer the agony and trauma of a criminal trial and detention in custody for taking cognizance against him by the Magistrate and putting him in trial in a case which was not maintainable against him. Thus, petitioner was entitled to compensation of Rs 100 each payable by the Judicial Magistrate, namely, Sri Ramanand Ram, S.D.J.M, Dalsingsarai- Samastipur and Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd Court, Samastipur. The Court directed the judicial officers concerned to deposit the fine amount in the Criminal Cash Section of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur within three weeks from the date of this order.
The Court opined that “it consciously issued the order for payment of compensation directing the Judicial Officers to pay a token amount as in the present case compensation was not assessed based on the mental agony and trauma and social ignominy suffered by petitioner due to sheer lackadaisical approach of both the courts below. The amount of compensation was fixed as a token to remind the Judicial Officers concerned that before taking cognizance and during judicial inquiry and trial, it was the bounden and obligatory duty of all the courts to go through the complaint carefully and then to take cognizance and proceed against the accused persons in accordance with law”.
The Court allowed the revision and held that since petitioner could not be booked for committing offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Act, he was acquitted from the charge, set at liberty, and released from the liability of bail bond.
[Sunil Pandit v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 959, decided on 18-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Chandra Mauli Chaurasia, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Judges should not be punished for exercising their judicial functions. This posses serious implications about independence of judges and lower judiciary overall. Judiciary cannot be independent if judges are under constant fear of being personally vexed by high court. This is the reason we already see reluctance of district judiciary in granting bail and thus as a result high courts are getting flooded by bail applications.
The High court should have overruled the judgement but should have not punished judicial officers.
No judge can claim that they have not erred atleast once (in the sense that their judgment was overruled by higher court).