The right to fair trial procedure, including the right to cross-examine crucial witnesses, is fundamental, and external factors that impact the administration of justice must be carefully considered.

1. The appeal at hand brings a challenge to the judgment dated 03.11.2015, followed by order dated 05.11.2015, of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-01, North-West, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions case no.166/2013 whereby the appellant was held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with further simple imprisonment for six months for default in payment of fine. The Sessions case, it may be mentioned here itself, was registered on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which had been submitted by the investigating office on conclusion of investigation into First Information Report (FIR) No.194/2013 of Police Station Bharat Nagar registered on 25.07.2013 for investigation of offences punishable under Sections 363/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. It may further be mentioned here that though the trial was held on the basis of charges famed on 07.02.2014, inter alia, for offences punishable under Sections 363/354/506 IPC besides under Section 9 (m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, by the impugned judgment the trial court did not return any finding, for reasons not indicated, qua the other charges, i.e., the offences punishable under Sections 363/354/506 IPC. This may not have been proper approach and rather is reflective of process being unnecessary hurried.

2. The appellant claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He has raised a number of contentions in defence, some over and above the arguments which were repelled by the trial court by the impugned judgment. One of his contentions, however, stands out, it concerning demands of fair trial procedure. It is this contention which, as the following discussion would show, must be accepted resulting in the impugned judgment and order on sentence being vacated and the matter being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, as directed here-in-after, and afresh adjudication.

3. It is trite that investigating police officer is an important witness for the prosecution, also from the perspective of defence. A person facing criminal charge is entitled to demonstrate, inter alia, by cross examination of the investigating police officer to show that the investigation was not fair or suffers from lapses which may have caused prejudice to the defence.

4. The investigating officer of this case, W/SI Shashi Lata (PW-10) was examined at the end, as is the usual practice, on 24.04.2015. The record would show that the opportunity to cross examine the said very important witness was given but not availed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, he also having been counsel for him at the trial, that on 24.04.2015 when PW-10, the investigating officer, was examined, the Bar Association of Rohini Courts had called for a strike and, therefore, he along with other Advocates were not allowed to enter the court premises. His submission to this effect is confirmed by the proceedings recorded by the trial court on 24.04.2015. Both the deposition sheet containing the evidence (examination in chief of PW-10) as also the corresponding order sheet dated 24.04.2015 records the presence of the appellant as accused produced from judicial custody with “a proxy counsel appointed by the bar”.

5. Apparently, the proxy counsel nominated by the Bar Association had no authority nor the necessary brief to conduct the proceedings. It is inherent in the said proceedings that the Bar Association had actually taken over the affairs in the courts at Rohini on that date and its proxies were representing the Advocates who had been engaged by the litigants thereby disallowing the latter from appearing.

6. The anxiety on the part of the learned trial Judge to proceed with the recording of evidence for which the witness had al