Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, May 28
Just about a fortnight after an Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) was asked to explain how witnesses were declared proclaimed offenders as the procedure was meant only for the accused, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected his explanation before directing the placing of the matter before the administrative judge concerned.
Each judicial district has an administrative judge who is incharge of the administration. He is empowered to initiate disciplinary action against the judicial officers.
The direction came after Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted it was apparent that the judicial officer relied upon two judgments prior to 1973 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code to justify the mistake.
Justice Sangwan added the explanation reflected that the judge tried to find out some verdicts to support his order. But he could not trace any judgment post 1973 amendment.
Justice Sangwan said: “Ordinarily if a mistake is committed and some explanation is called, while fairly admitting the mistake, which may be either on account of a typographical mistake, on account of some oversight, on account of heavy pendency of the cases, or even in some cases on account of not getting proper legal assistance from counsels or public prosecutors, the court concerned gives an undertaking that in future, it will remain careful about any such mistake so that the matter may be closed.”
The matter was brought to Justice Sangwan’s notice by Darshan Singh through counsel Ishan Gupta. Justice Sangwan’s Bench was told that Darshan Singh was seeking regular bail in a murder case and was in judicial custody for the past five years and three months.
Granting interim bail, Justice Sangwan asserted a court could issue a proclamation against any person against whom warrant had been issued and was avoiding its execution under Section 82(1) of the CrPC. “It is only under Section 82(4), the accused can be declared a PO and not a witness under Section 82(1) CrPC.”
Reasoning ‘not bona fide’
Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan said the judicial officer’s explanation, on the face of it, did not seem to be bona fide. Despite committing an error, the court was trying to justify it instead of undertaking to be cautious in future.
Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects explanation by ADSJ, directs placing of matter before administrative judge
{$excerpt:n}
