Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), praying for a declaration that the arrest of the petitioners made on 18-05-2024 in relation to a criminal case without there being any judicial order convicting the petitioners, was illegal. Navin Chawla, J., held that in the present case, not making available a copy of the judgment on conviction to the accused, and taking them into custody was inappropriate on the part of the Trial Court and denial of not only a statutory right but also a Constitutional Right to the accused, as the judgment was not read as a whole in open court.
The Court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judges of all the Districts Courts in Delhi to “sensitize the presiding judicial officers to pronounce their judgments on conviction only when they are ready for pronouncement and, in case where they are convicting the accused and taking the accused into custody, immediately supply a copy thereof, free of cost, to the accused for the accused to avail of the remedies available to them in accordance with law.”
The petitioners were undergoing trial in a criminal case, which originated from FIR registered at Police Station: Crime Branch, Delhi. They had been granted bail during the trial process. On 15-05-2024, the petitioners’ statements under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded, and the case was scheduled for consideration/judgment on 18-05-2024. The petitioners contended that on 18-05-2024, when they appeared before the trial court, they were taken into custody without any supplied orders. Despite their efforts to obtain a copy of the order dated 18th May 2024, it was not provided. Even an application for the order’s copy was not taken on record initially.
The Court referred to Section 353 of the CrPC, emphasizing the requirement for pronouncing judgments in open court, signing them, and making copies immediately available to parties or their pleaders. The Court noted that the judgment on conviction seemed unavailable even on the day of the petitioners’ custody, as evidenced by subsequent actions of the Trial Court.
The Court considered the failure to provide a copy of the judgment to the petitioners as a procedural lapse. However, it deemed this lapse insufficient to vitiate the proceedings or the judgment on conviction. Referring to the Supreme Court’s precedent, the Court decided in agreement with the submissions made by the ASC (Crl.) and the APP.
Given the availability of the judgment with the petitioners and its upload on the website, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail remedies in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Court directed the Trial Court officers to ensure timely pronouncement and supply of judgments to accused persons in custody, highlighting the importance of upholding statutory and constitutional rights.
[Munna v. State NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3945, decided on 22-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Ms. Renu, Ms. Manya Mishra, Mr. Dipak Raj Singh, Mr. Yashvardhan and Ms. Shivani Verma, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl), Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Zhavi Lazarus, Advs. with SI Sachin Gulia. Mr. Aman Usman, APP Mr. Shashank Garg and Ms. Aradhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for R-2/RG,DHC
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
