Punjab & Haryana High Court Revives Contempt Petition Against Additional Session Judge, Who Acquitted Murder Accused Despite Stay Order
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has revived contempt proceedings against the then Additional Session Judge of Kapurthala, who despite the stay order of the High Court acquitted the accused in a 2016 murder case.A contempt petition was filed against the judge for disobeying the order of the High Court and in 2019 it directed the Registrar Vigilance to conduct a fact finding enquiry and...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has revived contempt proceedings against the then Additional Session Judge of Kapurthala, who despite the stay order of the High Court acquitted the accused in a 2016 murder case.
A contempt petition was filed against the judge for disobeying the order of the High Court and in 2019 it directed the Registrar Vigilance to conduct a fact finding enquiry and submit a report.
Meanwhile, an appeal was filed against the acquittal order and contempt petition filed was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take up all the pleas in the appeal.
However, the report filed by the Registrar Vigilance revealed that, “officer was well aware about the stay order passed by this Court not to decide the trial and despite that, the accused were acquitted.”
While issuing notice to the parties, the bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan said, “Ms. Jitender Walia, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, has prima facie committed contempt of Court by violating the order dated 20.05.2016 passed in CRM-M No.17395 of 2016. Accordingly, this contempt petition is revived.”
The contempt plea was filed by the mother of the deceased, who was allegedly murdered by accused persons Bhajan Singh and Sarbjit Singh and others in 2014. The anticipatory bail application filed by an accused was rejected in 2014, thereafter the accused was declared as a proclaimed offender.
In 2015, the same Additional Sessions Judge, who had dismissed the application for pre-arrest bail of the accused, by entertaining the second application granted concession of pre-arrest bail in, without making reference to the first application.
The plea for cancellation of their bail and further investigation under Section 173 (8) CrPC was filed before High Court by the deceased person’s mother contending that her son had died after giving the statement to police.
It was further submitted that she had repeatedly informed the investigating agency that before his death, her son had made a statement to her regarding the persons who had attacked and injured him. However, her statements were not recorded.
In 2016, while issuing notice to the respondents, the Court directed the trial Court not to pass a final order in the case in the meantime.
“A perusal of the subsequent orders show that on 21.11.2016, a direction was issued to the police authorities to record the supplementary statement of the petitioner and thereafter, time was granted for placing on record the supplementary statement and to file status report regarding the action taken on the basis of the said statement,” noted the Court.
In 2017, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the accused have been acquitted despite a stay order which continued and was in the knowledge of the Trial Judge.
Consequently, a contempt case was filed against the ASJ Jitendra Walia.
In the contempt case, in an affidavit DSP Waryam Singh Sultanpur Lodhi, clearly stated that the order whereby passing of final order was stayed, was in the knowledge of the presiding officer, noted the Court.
The judge in her defence submitted that the stay order was not brought to her notice either by any court official, prosecuting agency, public prosecutor or by the counsel for the complainant.
To ascertain the facts, the High Court opined that “fact finding enquiry is necessary before it arrives at a final conclusion.”
Registrar (Vigilance) was directed to conduct a fact finding enquiry and submit a report within one month to ascertain whether there was a willful disobedience of order passed by the High Court.
Pending enquiry, the contempt petition was disposed of in 2022, observing that since an appeal against the acquittal is filed which is pending and the Presiding Judge has taken voluntary retirement, the petitioner can raise all the pleas before the Appellate Court where the appeal against acquittal is pending.
On completion of the enquiry by the Registrar Vigilance, the report was submitted in a sealed cover and it stated that, “In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the version of Ms. Jitender Walia, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala that she was not aware of order dated 20.05.2016 having been passed by the Hon’ble High Court is difficult to accept.”
"It has to be borne in mind that the Presiding Officer was dealing with a case under Section 302 IPC. She would, therefore, be deemed to be having knowledge about the entire file and it cannot be simply stated by the Presiding Officer that the order passed by the High Court was not brought to her notice," it added.
Justice Sangwan opined that prima facie the judge has” committed contempt of Court” by violating the stay order.
Consequently, the contempt proceeding has been revived.
Case Title: Kulwant Kaur @ Kanto v. Jatinder Walia