Home >  Top Stories >  Supreme Court Affirms...

Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal Of Sessions Judge For Altering Sentence In A Murder Case

By - Shruti Kakkar
Update: 2022-07-11 12:21 GMT
story

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by an Additional Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh challenging the termination of her service for passing a wrong judicial order while on probation.The Court held that there was "nothing wrong" in the decision of the State of Madhya Pradesh to terminate the services of the judge on a recommendation made by the Full Court of the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Subscribe Now

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by an Additional Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh challenging the termination of her service for passing a wrong judicial order while on probation.

The Court held that there was "nothing wrong" in the decision of the State of Madhya Pradesh to terminate the services of the judge on a recommendation made by the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Accordingly, a bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Ravidra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia dismissed the writ petition filed by the former judge, who appeared as party-in-person.

She was dismissed from service while on probation on the ground that in a murder case tried by her, she initially awarded a sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. But later, she altered the conviction as one under part 1 of Section 304 of IPC which deals with "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". Citing this irregularity, the Full Court recommended her dismissal, which the State Government accepted.

The bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia while dismissing the petition said, "We have all the sympathies for you and we wish you luck for future endeavors."
When the matter was called for hearing, Justice UU Lalit said that the modification of sentence made by the Additional Sessions Judge was "quite shocking".
"Since your period of probation was on, the Administrative Committee had taken a decision to terminate you", Justice Lalit said.
Responding to the remarks made by the Judge, the petitioner submitted that no notice was given to her and urged that one mistake could not be a ground for termination.
"This was my first posting and first judgment. I'm still learning. It was only 1 mistake and I was fired. I'm not giving a chance to even prove myself. I have not been given any chance of improvement," the petitioner further submitted.
"That all depends on the kind and magnitude of mistakes. One can understand if they are typographical mistakes or purely unintended. But this kind of total incongruity  ....see, you are a sessions judge, with the power to even award death sentence", Justice Lalit said.

The petitioner submitted that there are Supreme Court judgments stating that a judge cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for passing a wrong judicial order. 

"If we strictly go by the letter of law, if probation is not completed and the order is non-stigmatic, there is nothing that we can do," Justice Lalit said.

"If a call is taken by the administrative committee of the High Court that the probation is not succesfully completed, we cannot interfere. A mistaken order shall not be a fulcrum for departmental proceedings. You are right there. But this kind of logic...look at the kind of position you are holding", Justice Lalit added.

The bench pointed that as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge has no power to review a judgment. The petitioner then said that she passed the alteration order after receiving an application from the Prosecutor. But the bench reiterated that such a course was not permissible in law.
The bench also perused the judgment in question passed by the petitioner.
"Madam you're completely mixing up things. She was actually set on fire. Where is the question of 304 part 1 then? You're trying to modify the judgment" Justice Lalit observed after reading the judgment.
The bench at this juncture dismissed the petition.
Case Title : Leena Dixit vs Registrar General, MP High Court

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Tags:    

Similar News

Judge-To-Population Ratio Was Ordered To Be Made 50 Per Million By 2007, But Not Even 25 Per Million In 2024 : Supreme Court Laments

Sanatana Dharma Row| Supreme Court Extends Interim Order Exempting Udhayanidhi Stalin's Personal Appearance Before Trial Courts

Supreme Court Gives Union Final Opportunity To File Reply In PIL Alleging Exchange Of Currency Defaced By Kashmiri Separatists At RBI Branch

After Supreme Court's Rap, Goa Notifies Pension Rules For Bombay HC Goa Bench Staff In Line With Principal Bench

"Why Corporator's Wife Given 2 Licenses?" : Supreme Court Questions Maharashtra Govt On Matheran E-Rickshaw Licenses

Show If Every DRT Has 30 Staff Members : Supreme Court To Finance Ministry

Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers : Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge

Supreme Court Transfers Trial Pending Against Choreographer Remo D'Souza In 2016 Cheating Case From UP To Delhi

Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union & States On Plea To Establish Transgender Welfare Boards

'When Organised Crimes Are On Rise, Should Legislature Think Of Safeguards For Accused?' : Supreme Court In Plea Challenging BNS, BNSS Provisions

Delhi Air Pollution | Parents Belonging To Underprivileged Sections Urge Supreme Court To Review Suspension Of Physical Classes

Centre Opposes Amicus's Suggestion To Form Panel Of Former SC Judges To Deal With Stubble Burning Issue