Trial Court Judges Must Pronounce Orders In Reserved Cases Within Two-Three Weeks After Transfer: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has directed that all the judges in the trial courts in the national capital shall pronounce orders or judgments in the reserved cases within two or three weeks after their transfer and that the same will not be listed before the subsequent judge for rehearing.

“The Presiding Officer shall remain duty bound to pronounce judgments/orders in all such matters on the date already fixed or, at the latest, within 2–3 weeks from the date of their transfer, as noted above, and in accordance with the notes appended to the transfer list,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The Court noted that whenever a transfer list of judicial officer is issued, it is circulated to all the judicial officers who are affected by the said transfer as well as others.

It further noted that Note (2) appended to the transfer list clearly stipulates that judicial officers under transfer are required to notify the cases in which judgments or orders had been reserved prior to relinquishing charge in accordance with the transfer or posting order.

The Court said that the note also mandates that such judicial officers shall pronounce judgments or orders in all such matters on the date fixed or, at the latest, within 2–3 weeks, irrespective of their new posting.

“This directive is binding not only upon the transferring officer but also on the successor court, which is expected to adhere to and facilitate compliance with the same, as the note forms part of the official transfer communication received by them,” the Court said.

It issued the following directions to be followed in all cases where a Presiding Officer is transferred and has reserved judgments or orders prior to relinquishing charge:

- The Presiding Officer being transferred shall prepare a comprehensive list of all cases in which orders or judgments have been reserved by them but not yet pronounced.

- This list shall be submitted to the concerned District Judge before the date of relinquishing charge.

- The Presiding Officer shall remain dutybound to pronounce judgments/orders in all such matters on the date already fixed or, at the latest, within 2–3 weeks from the date of their transfer, as noted above, and in accordance with the notes appended to the transfer list.

- The District Judge of the concerned district shall ensure compliance with the above directions and facilitate the pronouncement of judgments/orders by the transferred Presiding Officer in accordance with the mandate of the transfer list.

Justice Sharma ordered that the copy of the judgment be forwarded to all the District and Sessions Judges of Delhi, who shall ensure its circulation among all the Judicial Officers posted in their respective jurisdictions.

“A copy of the judgment shall also be forwarded to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy, with a direction to take note of its contents and to ensure that the guidelines and observations contained herein are appropriately included in the refresher courses and training modules for Judicial Officers undergoing training at the Academy,” the Court said.

Justice Sharma was dealing with a plea filed by a man challenging the trial court order refusing to condone delay of 90 days in filing the appeal against his conviction in a cheque bouncing case.

He also challenged his sentence wherein he was asked to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court, and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7 lakh.

During trial, the matter was heard and listed for judgment or clarification on May 31, 2023. In the meantime, the Predecessor Judge was transferred and was succeeded by another Presiding Officer.

The successor judge reheard the arguments. Due to some adjournments, the matter was adjourned for pronouncement of judgment without affording the accused an opportunity of hearing. He sought transfer of the matter wherein he was informed that he had already been convicted in the case.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court observed that there were no justifiable grounds to remand the case to the Trial Court and that the record clearly reflected that ample and repeated opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to advance final arguments.

However, the Court said that both the judicial officers committed an error- the Presiding Officer who had reserved the judgment was dutybound to pronounce the order as per mandate of the note appended to the transfer list and the successor court was dutybound who have not listed it for re-hearing and should have sent it to the District Judge concerned for being placed before the Presiding Officer who had reserved the judgment.

“Needless to say, the transferred and the Successor Presiding Officer both had been transferred by virtue of the same transfer list and, therefore, had knowledge as to how they were to deal with a case wherein the judgment stood reserved,” the Court said.

Title: B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Click here to read order