Judicial Officers Need Sensitization In Intricacies Of Special Enactments: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The High Court of Delhi recently rapped District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the Additional Sessions Judge presiding over the Special Court, over the handling of the Public Prosecutor’s report for extension of judicial custody of an accused under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).

Justice R.K. Gauba then emphasized on the need for training of judicial officers for dealing with special enactments and observed, “The impropriety reflected in the inept handling on the part of the judicial officers who dealt with the matter at hand, as noticed above, points to the need for proper sensitization of the judicial officers at large in the intricacies and nuances of such special enactments through training or orientation programmes organized by the judicial academy.”

Justice Gauba further shed light on the confusion that might prevail in cases of presiding officers of special courts being not available, either on account of leave of absence or due to other official engagements. He therefore proposed arrangement of link Courts, similar to the Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by one Mr. Rambeer Shokeen, who had been arrested in December last year, for offences punishable under Sections 3 (punishment for organized crime) and 4 (Punishment for possessing unaccountable wealth on behalf of member of organized crime syndicate) of the MCOCA. He had now challenged certain orders passed by the DSJ and the Special Court Judge, contending that his continued remand to judicial custody beyond February, 2017 was illegal.

Mr. Shokeen had thereafter contended that he was entitled to be released on bail due to delay on the part of the investigating police agency in completing the investigation and filing its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the statutory period of 90 days.

Analysing the evidence on record, the Court noted that the public prosecutor had submitted a report before the Court, setting out reasons for continued detention of the appellant. This report was however placed before the DSJ, as the Special Court Judge was on leave of absence on the day of the hearing. The DSJ had then deferred the hearing to a date which was beyond the statutory period of 90 days, for it to be “decided by the concerned court” while extending the judicial custody for such period.

Thereafter, the Special Court Judge had dismissed the public prosecutor’s plea as “infructuous” since the supplementary charge-sheet had already been filed. This, the High Court observed, “to say the least, was again most improper and erroneous approach on the part of the Special Court.”

Holding that the two Judicial Officers had failed to discharge their responsibility with efficiency, the Court further observed, “In the considered view of this court, the approach of the District & Sessions Judge in the proceedings recorded on 01.03.2017 deferring the consideration of the report of the public prosecutor to 07.03.2017 and of the additional sessions judge presiding over the special court by order dated 08.03.2017 holding such report to be “infructuous” were incorrect, improper and wholly whimsical, the procrastination or abdication of responsibility demonstrated thereby having the effect of frustrating the legislative mandate and, therefore, impermissible.”

Read the Judgment here.