IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. Midha, Rajnish Bhatnagar, Brijesh Sethi, JJ.
Karan - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. 352 of 2020 and Crl.A. 353 of 2020
Decided On : 27-11-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the validity of judicial authority and procedural compliance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the crime and procedural history (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the necessity for judicial review of administrative decisions (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. irregularities in procedure that do not vitiate the trial (Para 17 , 18 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. application of the de facto doctrine in judicial context (Para 44 , 53 , 152) |
JUDGMENT
J.R. Midha, J. The appellants have been convicted by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 IPC. The ld. Addl. Sessions Judge reserved the judgment, after conclusion of the arguments, on 06th March, 2020 while being posted at Karkardooma Courts. On 13th March, 2020, ld. Addl. Sessions Judge was transferred from Karkardooma Courts to Rohini Courts and he pronounced the impugned judgments on 09th July, 2020. The appellants have challenged impugned judgments on the two grounds: first, that the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of Karkardooma Courts matters upon being transferred with immediate effect vide transfer order No.10/G-I/Gaz.IA/DHC/2020 dated 13th March, 2020 and he was not empowered to deal with this case which was tried in the jurisdiction of Karkardooma Courts and second, that Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March, 2020 which empowered the judicial officers to pronounce the judgment/order in the reserved matters, was invalid. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jitender @ Kalle v. State, (2013) 196 DLT 103 (DB).
2. An important question of law has arisen for consideration before this Court with respect to the validity of Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March, 2020 and the correctness of the findings of Jitender's case relating to Note 2 in respect of similar transfer orders of the High Court. Note 2 empowered the transferred judicial officers to pronounce the judgments/orders in respect of the reserved matters within a period of 2-3 weeks after transfer took effect, notwithstanding such posting/transfer. Note 2? appended to the Transfer Order is reproduced herein under:
"Note 2. The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in which they had reserved judgments/orders before relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of the posting/transfer order. The judicial officers shall pronounce judgments/orders in all such matters on the date fixed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof, notwithstanding the posting/transfer. Date of pronouncement shall be notified in the cause list of the court to which the matter pertains as also of the court to which the judicial officer has been transferred and on the website."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Brief facts
3. On 15th June, 2017 at about 09:00 PM, the appellants namely Karan, Sunny and `MB' a juvenile in conflict with law dragged Gulfam out of his house to a nearby park where Karan and Sunny caught hold of Gulfam and MB stabbed Gulfam in his back with a knife/chura. Gulfam suffered fatal injuries. FIR No. 465/2017 was registered at P.S. Nand Nagari and both the appellants were charged for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. The chargesheet was committed to the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge Shahdara, vide order dated 23rd October, 2017 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and both the accused persons faced the trial.
4. Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts heard the final arguments which concluded on 06th March, 2020 whereupon he reserved the judgment and the matter was listed for orders on 17th March, 2020.
5. Vide transfer notification/order bearing No. 10/G-I/Gaz.IA/DH/2020 dated 13th March, 2020, Sh. Jagdish Kumar was transferred from the post of Addl. Sessions Judge, Judge-04, Karkardooma Courts to Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), North Rohini with immediate effect.
6. On 09th July, 2020, Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge delivered the judgment while Presiding as Addl. Sessions Judge (Special
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.