Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to transfer the present case from Assistant Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Patiala House Courts to ASJ, Karkardooma Courts for pronouncement of judgement in FIR under Sections 302, 174-A, 120-B and 34 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 because the Judge who had heard the matter was being transferred there.
A Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga, J., held that no interference was warranted in the case at hand as merely because the Presiding Officer had earlier reserved the judgment, he could not be forced to pronounce the same, even if he felt the need for further assistance in the matter. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of and the Court directed to expediate disposal of the said matter.
Background
In the present case, the transfer of record of the case concerned from Patiala House Courts to Karkardooma Courts was sought since the Judge concerned who had heard the matter, was transferred to Karkardooma Courts. The judgement was then reserved, and he carried the case files with him to deliver the judgement.
The matter was heard on several dates at Karkardooma Courts, but no judgment was pronounced. Subsequently, the file was remanded back to the transferee Court i.e., Patiala House, and it was held that the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor and Investigating Officer were required considering the number of issues involved and enormous number of witnesses.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that not only the independence of judiciary is needed to be maintained, but even otherwise, when a judicial officer was of the mind that judgment could not be pronounced on the material available on record and further assistance was required for certain clarifications, it became a matter of being put up open for hearing in the Court. Further, the Court emphasized that merely because the Presiding Officer had earlier reserved the judgment, he could not be forced to pronounce the same, even if he felt the need for further assistance in the matter.
Therefore, the Court held that no interference was warranted in the present case and directed the case to be listed before the transferee Judge. The Court disposed of the petition and stated that since the trial stood concluded and the judgment at one stage was reserved and kept pending for 2 months, it would be appreciated that the transferee Judge took the matter on priority and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
[Abuzar@Anta v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. No. 6408 of 2025, decided on 26-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: M.L. Yadav, Harish Chand, Anant Chittoria, P.C.Arya, Prashant and Vipakshi Rana, Advocates
For the Respondent: Richa Dhawan, APP for the State along with SI Prahlad, P.S.-Special Cell/SWR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
