A conviction must allow a fair trial and representation; denial results in breach of justice.

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Cr.P.C .”) has been filed for quashing of Judgment dated 23.04.2018 and the Order on Sentence dated 23.04.2018 of learned MM.

2. Briefly stated, FIR No. 0119/2018 dated 24.02.2018 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007  (hereinafter referred to as the “DPDP Act”). He was informed by one police official on 03.04.2018 to appear before the Court on 20.04.2018. Accordingly, he appeared before the learned MM and was not represented by any Counsel. He again appeared before the Court on 23.04.2018. He was completely uninformed about the proceedings that took place before the learned MM. On 23.04.2018, he was asked to deposit a fine of Rs.1,000/- before the Court. He duly complied with the directions despite the fact that he was not aware of the nature of the proceedings.

3. In October, 2019, he applied for renewal of his Passport and upon verification; his conviction under DPDP Act was recorded. He was completely shocked and surprised on this information as he was unaware of the conviction. He inspected the Court records through his Counsel and found that he had been released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 .

4. It is submitted that the entire trial from the passing of a Bail Order to framing of Notice and recording of evidence was done on one date. His statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C . and pronouncement of judgment was done on the second date.

5. The impugned Judgment and the Order on Sentence are challenged on the grounds that the Trial Court had conducted the trial in undue haste as no time was granted to the Petitioner to engage a Counsel to defend him before the Trial Court on the first date i.e. 20.04.2018, on which date cognizance was taken. Moreover, even the copy of the Charge-sheet was not provided to him. He was not given an opportunity to engage an Advocate. The entire prosecution evidence was also recorded without giving an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses. On 23.04.2018, the entire trial was concluded and the sentence was also pronounced.

6. It is contended that the procedure followed by the learned MM was completely in violation of the principles of natural justice as he was not given any right to defend himself. Furthermore, the Judgment is completely contrary to the record. In Paragraph 5 of the Judgment, it is stated that Petitioner has admitted the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C . when in fact, he had stated that he had been implicated falsely in this case. Reliance is placed on Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat , (2004) 4 SCC 158 wherein it was held that the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt after judicial evaluation of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny. Failure to accord fair hearing either to the Accused or the Prosecution violates even minimum standards of due process of law.

7. The condemnation under law should be rendered only after the trial in which hearing is a real one and not sham or a mere farce and pretence. Since the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial.

8. Furthermore, the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C . was framed on the same day on which evidence had been recorded. No opportunity was given either to cross-examine or to lead evidence in his defence. He was even not provided with the copy of the Judgment.

9. It is submitted that the Appeal against such conviction is barred under Section 3 76 Cr.P.C . as neither any sentence nor any fine has been imposed upon the Petitioner and has been released on admonition. Therefore, the W.P.(CRL) 486/2020