Supreme Court: Judge Can't Retain Case File and deliver judgment After retirement

  One of the contentions raised in these appeals is

that on 17th April, 2017, the learned Single Judge

pronounced only one line order declaring the operative

part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017

and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd

October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge

demitted the office. On these facts, there is no

dispute. {Para 5}

6. The operative part was pronounced on 17th April,

2017. There were five weeks available for the learned

Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on

which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment

running into more than 250 pages has come out after a

lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned

Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even

after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned

reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us,

retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after

demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on

the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance

what has been done in this case.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.829-830 OF 2024

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.2210-2211 of 2024

@ Diary No.29911 of 2018)

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

CBI CHENNAI  VS. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR. 

Author: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

Dated: February 13, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 120.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondents.

4. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court

decided two proceedings by the impugned judgment. The

first was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the charge sheet in

CC No.3 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned

Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai. The second was a

Criminal Revision Application challenging the order

dated 4th August, 2015 by which an application for

discharge made by the respondents in the same case was

rejected by the impugned judgment. The learned Judge

quashed the charge sheet, insofar as the first respondent

is concerned and by setting aside the order dated 4th

August, 2015, an order of discharge was passed as regards

another accused.

5. One of the contentions raised in these appeals is

that on 17th April, 2017, the learned Single Judge

pronounced only one line order declaring the operative

part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017

and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd

October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge

demitted the office. On these facts, there is no

dispute.

6. The operative part was pronounced on 17th April,

2017. There were five weeks available for the learned

Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on

which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment

running into more than 250 pages has come out after a

lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned

Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even

after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned

reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us,

retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after

demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on

the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance

what has been done in this case.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents tried to urge that we should independently

hear the case on merits.

8. Lord Hewart said hundred years back that "justice

must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done".

What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord

Hewart said. We cannot support such acts of impropriety

and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this

Court is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the

cases to the High Court for a fresh decision.

9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment in

Criminal O.P.No.21243/2014 and Criminal Revision Case

No.1191/2015 in Criminal M.P.No.3613/2014 in CC

No.03/2014 and restore both the matters to the file of

the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Both the cases

shall be decided by the High Court afresh in accordance

with law.

10. Needless to add that we have made no adjudication

on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left

open to be decided by the High Court. If there are any

subsequent events, the parties are free to bring it to

the notice of the High Court in accordance with law.

11. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed.

..........................J.

(ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

February 13, 2024.

Print Page