MP High Court Orders Enquiry Against Judge Who 'Blindly Signed' Wrong Order Sheets Written By Clerk
After finding out that the trial court negligently posted a cheating case for prosecution evidence repeatedly instead of framing the charges, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has recommended an enquiry against the erring judge and concerned clerk. While deciding on an application under Section 439 CrPC [483 BNSS], the High Court saw that the trial court wrongly posted a case for evidence...
After finding out that the trial court negligently posted a cheating case for prosecution evidence repeatedly instead of framing the charges, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has recommended an enquiry against the erring judge and concerned clerk.
While deciding on an application under Section 439 CrPC [483 BNSS], the High Court saw that the trial court wrongly posted a case for evidence on more than one occasion. Upon closer inspection, the court deduced that the wrong order sheets were handwritten whereas other order sheets were typed.
The single-judge bench of Justice G.S Ahluwalia perused the trial court records after the applicant/accused raised a plea that there was considerable delay in the trial, and he was entitled to bail.
“…Thus, it is clear that whatever order sheets were dictated by the trial Court were duly typed but it appears that order sheets dated 24.02.2024, 09.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 were written by the clerk, which were blindly signed by the trial Court”, the court inferred from the copies of order sheets produced by the applicant.
The court disapproved of how the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Bhopal District & Sessions Court ostensibly signed off on the incorrect order sheets handwritten by the clerk. Hence, the court has directed the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal to conduct an enquiry to ascertain what circumstances prompted the judge to sign the handwritten orders.
“…if it is found that the trial Court was negligent, then he is directed to place the said report before Hon'ble Chief Justice for action on administrative side and if the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal also comes to a conclusion that the concerning clerk was also responsible for writing incorrect order sheets, then he shall initiate departmental proceedings against him”, the court noted.
Though the chargesheet was filed on 05.12.2023, the counsel for the applicant/accused sought adjournments for the arguments before framing of charges from 02.01.2024. However, from 24.02.2024 till 05.04.2024, on three distinct occasions, the court repeatedly marked the absence of prosecution witnesses and adjourned the matter for recording evidence.
“…On 05.04.2024 the trial Court realized its mistake and once again fixed the case for hearing on the question of framing of charges…” the single judge bench pointed out.
Background & Observations
According to the allegations, the applicant is the mastermind behind an operation of taking vehicles on rent, and then mortgaging them. The cheating case was registered in Nishatpura Police Station, Bhopal. Considering these allegations, as well as the counsel's unwillingness to argue on the aspect of framing of charges before lower court, the court deemed it fit to deny the fourth bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court also opined that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution.
The court also justified its decision not to grant bail by referring to the factum of co-accused absconding from the police.
However, the court granted applicant the liberty to apply for a separate trial excluding the co-accused. Justice Ahluwalia also made it clear that the accused/applicant can file the bail application again once the co-accused surrenders.
While considering the Section 439 application, the court also found it perplexing that though a direction was given to issue summons to the witnesses, no endorsement could be seen on the side of order sheets to the effect that summons was ever issued.
“…On 14.06.2024, it was mentioned that the summons issued to the witnesses have not been received back but from order dated 31.05.2024 it appears that no summons were issued at all. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the observation made by the trial Judge on 14.06.2024 was not correct”, the court further observed.
The court has additionally asked for the entire trial proceedings to be concluded within 2 months.
Advocate Shafiqullah appeared for the applicant. Public Prosecutor K.S Baghel represented the state.
Case Title: Ranjeet Singh Johal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 29009 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 152