Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Deepak Gupta, P. Sam Koshy, JJ.
Smt. Kiran Singh, W/o Shri Anil Kumar Singh - Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.181, 134, 224 of 2016
Decided On : 24-08-2016
For the Appellants :Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Shri V.A. Goverdhan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Shri Praveen Das, Advocates
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 306 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 235 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 227 and 235 – Jurisdiction - Posted as Second Additional District - Member of State Bar Council - factual matrix is that was posted as Second Additional District and Sessions Jude - A complaint was received by the High Court from Advocate and Member of State Bar Council that had passed orders acquitting accused but there were no judgments on facts - Registrar of this Court issued a memorandum to the District and Sessions Judge to inquire into the matter and submit his report - District and Sessions Judge submitted his report to the High Court on the same day itself in which he clearly stated that no judgments were found on the records of such cases - District and Sessions Judge in his report has stated that in two sessions trials being Sessions Trial and Sessions Trial though Additional Sessions Judge has purportedly delivered judgments they were not available on record as they had not actually been dictated dated or signed – Thereafter matter was placed in a meeting of the Full Court of this Court – Held, In view of above discussion court are clearly of the view that order passed in Sessions Trial and the order passed in Sessions Trial are wholly illegal - They have been passed without there being any judgments on record - Presiding Officer acted dishonestly and made a false statement in the order-sheets that the judgments have been pronounced signed and dated - In fact there is no judgment on record - Though court have held that these orders could not be set aside on administrative side court are clearly of view that such an illegal perverse and dishonest order cannot be permitted to remain on the record - Court Had heard Counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners also and no serious argument in this regard has been raised before us Since there is no judgment on record court set aside order passed in Sessions Trial and the order passed in Sessions Trial in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Records of sessions trials be sent to the concerned Court which shall after receipt of the records of the sessions trials issue fresh warrants against the accused and after ensuring their presence Trial Court shall hear arguments in matters and thereafter decide the same afresh - Court make it clear that there shall be no fresh or de novo trials and Sessions Judge shall only proceed from the stage of hearing arguments in sessions trials - Writ appeals are disposed of
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The above-mentioned three writ appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals and they arise out of one and same judgment delivered by Learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.2.2016.
2. Very important and interesting questions of law are involved in these three cases with regard to the amplitude and width of the powers of the High Court on the administrative side to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India (henceforth ‘the Constitution’).
3. The factual matrix is that one Shri L.R. Thakur was posted as Second Additional District and Sessions Jude at Ambikapur. A complaint was received by the High Court from one Shri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate and Member of the State Bar Council that Shri L.R. Thakur had passed orders acquitting the accused, but there were no judgments on the facts. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court issued a memorandum to the District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur on 18.2.2008 to inquire into the matter and submit his report. The District and Sessions Judge submitted his report to the High Court on the same day itself in which he clearly stated that no judgments were found on the records of such cases. The District and Sessions Judge in his report has stated that in two sessions trials, being Sessions Trial No.148 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No.71 of 1995, though Shri L.R. Thakur, Additional Sessions Judge has purportedly delivered the judgments, they were not available on the record as they had not actually been dictated, dated or signed. Thereafter, the matter was placed in a meeting of the Full Court of this Court on 4.3.2008. In the said meeting, the Full Court passed a resolution placing Shri L.R. Thakur under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry to be conducted against Shri L.R. Thakur in relation to the irregularities committed by him in discharge of his judicial work. At the same time, the Full Court took a decision to transfer the cases in question from the Court of Shri L.R. Thakur, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur for their rehearing and disposal. At this stage, it may be pointed out that as far as disciplinary proceedings against Shri L.R. Thakur are concerned, they were duly completed and after receipt of the inquiry report in which Shri L.R. Thakur was found guilty, the Full Court recommended imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement upon Shri L.R. Thakur and vide order dated 22.3.2011 Shri L.R. Thakur was compulsorily retired from Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service.
4. The instant three writ appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No.148 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No.71 of 1995. The accused in Sessions Trial No.148 of 1999 filed two writ petitions, being Writ Petitions (Criminal) No.2796 of 2008 and 2238 of 2008. The accused in Sessions Trial No.71 of 1995 filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.276 of 2010.
5. The main contention on behalf of the writ Petitioners was that an order was passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur acquitting the Petitioners from the charge framed against them and this itself would amount to a judgment and since the proceedings had come to an end, the High Court had no jurisdiction or competence to direct the transfer of the cases in question to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur. It was also urged that the order passed on the administrative side has the effect of setting aside the judicial order and as such the same should be set aside.
6. On behalf of the High Court, it was urged that there was no judgment on record and the order passed by the Trial Court in which the Trial Court had stated that vide separate judgment of date the accused has been acquitted, was only a record of the proceedings and it did not amount to a judgment and, there
