Delhi High Court: In the present case, a petition was filed under Article 226 of Constitution read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing judgment and order on sentence dated 23-4-2018 of Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), whereby the Trial Court had conducted the trial in undue haste and the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard or engage counsel for his defence. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., opined that although Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘1958 Act’) protected against disqualification due to admonition, the issue in the present case was of blatant denial of right to fair hearing and the judgment, patently on the face of it was against the law.
The Court observed that though the legislation had thought it appropriate to not let the conviction resulting in petty sentence be challengeable, but the present case was of patent illegality, thus the Court set aside the judgment and order on sentence dated 23-4-2018. Further, the Court ordered fresh trial to be conducted, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to engage a counsel and right of fair trial.
Background:
A FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 (‘DPDP Act’) on 24-2-2018. He was informed by one police official on 3-4-2018 to appear before the Court and so he appeared before the MM and was not represented by any Counsel. Thereafter, he again appeared before the Court on 23-4-2018 and was completely uninformed about the proceedings that took place before the MM. On 23-4-2018, he was asked to deposit a fine of Rs 1,000 before the Court and despite the fact that he was not aware of the nature of the proceedings, he complied with the directions. In 2019, he applied for renewal of his Passport and upon verification, his conviction under DPDP Act was recorded. He, through his Counsel got inspected the Court records and found that he had been released on probation under 1958 Act.
The petitioner submitted that the entire trial, including the passing of bail order, framing of notice, and recording of evidence, and pronouncement of judgment was conducted in undue haste across just two dates. The petitioner was not given time to engage counsel to defend him before the Trial Court and was not provided with a copy of the charge-sheet or judgment. Furthermore, the Notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed on the same day on which evidence had been recorded. The prosecution evidence was recorded without giving the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to lead evidence in his defence.
It was further submitted that the procedure followed by the MM violated principles of natural justice and due process, as the petitioner was not given any right to defend himself. The judgment incorrectly recorded that he admitted to the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, whereas he had actually claimed false implication. Since the petitioner was released on admonition under the 1958 Act and no sentence or fine was imposed, an appeal was barred under Section 376 CrPC. Hence, the present writ petition was filed for quashing the judgment and sentence order dated 23-4-2018.
Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that in the present case the petitioner was convicted under Section 3 DPDP Act vide Judgment dated 30-4-2018 and was sentenced to admonition under 1958 Act vide order dated 23-4-2018. The Court in regard to the maintainability of the appeal, observed that Section 376 CrPC bars appeals in petty cases where the sentence was up to three months or fine up to Rs 200, or both, and while Section 11(2) of the 1958 Act permitted appeals against orders under Sections 3 or 4, it was limited to challenging the order of admonition, not the conviction. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the conviction and not the sentence, he had no alternate remedy and rightly invoked Article 226 of Constitution, claiming violation of natural justice and Article 21.
The Court further noted that fresh challan was filed, cognizance had been taken, and bail was granted on the same day. However, only the personal bond was accepted despite directions for bail and surety bonds, the Court noted that if the MM wanted to proceed with further trial on the same date, he could have asked for furnishing of a Personal Bond rather than directing the furnishing of bail bond and the surety bond. This discrepancy itself reflected the non-application of mind and undue haste in denying an opportunity to the petitioner to be sufficiently represented. The Court further noted that the most material witness to prove the contents of the charge-sheet, the complainant was not examined. The investigating officer not being a competent witness, prosecution could not prove the commission of offence.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 23-4-2018, in which he denied the incriminating evidence and yet, the judgment of Trial Court wrongly stated that he admitted to putting up a board. The Court observed that this was patently against the record and from the record, it was evident that not only was the petitioner denied right to a fair hearing and to defend himself but the judgment itself was based on circumstances which had neither been proved by the prosecution nor admitted by the petitioner. On the contention of the Petitioner that this conviction under Section 3 DPDP Act came in his way when he sought the renewal of his passport, the Court observed that although Section 12 of the 1958 Act protected against disqualification due to admonition, the issue in the present case was of blatant denial of right to fair hearing and the Judgment, patently on the face of it being against law.
The Court observed that though, the legislation in its wisdom had thought it appropriate to not let the conviction resulting in petty sentence be challengeable, but the present case being of patent illegality, this Court deemed it appropriate to set aside the judgment and order on sentence dated 23-4-2018 and ordered a fresh trial be conducted, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to engage a counsel and right of fair trial.
[Aditya Rai Gupta v. State, W.P.(CRL) 486 of 2020, decided on 7-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta, Advocates along with SI Vikas Yadav, P.S. Rajouri Garden
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
