Justice Must Not Only Be Done But Seen: Kerala HC Intervenes in Rushed NI Act Verdicts - 2025-09-09

Justice Must Not Only Be Done But Seen: Kerala HC Intervenes in Rushed NI Act Verdict

In a stern reminder to the trial judiciary, the Kerala High Court has underscored that the administrative pressure of “docket explosions” cannot justify compromising the procedural fairness afforded to litigants. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, presiding over a matter involving a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ruled that courts must prioritize transparency and perception of fairness over the rush to dispose of cases.

The Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Prasanth Andrews, faced prosecution in an S.T. No. 789 of 2023 case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (E&O), Ernakulam. The core of the dispute centered on the admissibility of evidence. During his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner alleged that the subject cheques were originally handed over to a third party, Shivasubramaniam, and not directly to the complainant.

To corroborate this, the petitioner sought to introduce WhatsApp chat screenshots between himself and Shivasubramaniam. While the witness (Shivasubramaniam) identified the phone number in the chat, the Magistrate’s refusal to permit the marking of this evidence—and the subsequent haste to move toward judgment—triggered the current legal intervention.

Arguments and Procedural Tensions

The petitioner contended that the Magistrate acted with undue haste by dismissing his application to reopen evidence (Ext.P2) on September 8, 2025, and scheduling the verdict for the very next day. Despite the petitioner filing for a certified copy of the order, the trial court proceeded toward judgment without ensuring the petitioner had an opportunity to review or challenge the denial of his evidence application.

The High Court observed that the petitioner had previously approached the Court to ensure his application was heard, and the disregard for the subsequent order signaled a breakdown in the expected pace of justice delivery.

Key Observations

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan’s judgment serves as a vital critique of judicial speed at the cost of due process:

• "While trying to dispose of the cases, the court should bear in mind that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done."
• "Even if a case is dismissed or allowed, parties should leave the court premises with a feeling that they obtained a fair chance to contest their case."
• "I am dissatisfied with the way in which the learned Magistrate shows haste in disposing of this case."
• "Heaven will not fall down if the pronouncement of the final verdict is made after serving a copy of the order passed in [the application]."

The Ruling: A Call for Restraint

Finding the trial court's conduct inappropriate, the High Court issued strict directives to balance the scales. The Court ordered that the certified copy of the order dismissing the evidence application must be served to the petitioner within three days, provided a proper application is filed.

Crucially, the Court deferred the pronouncement of the final judgment in the main case by two weeks, allowing the petitioner time to pursue his legal remedies. The High Court Registry was further directed to inform the trial magistrate immediately via telephone to ensure the judgment is not pronounced prematurely. This ruling reaffirms that while judicial efficiency is a virtue, it can never supersede the foundational principles of a fair and transparent trial.