IN THE MATTER OF; "RV", A JUDICIAL OFFICER versus

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 06-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

" 
IN THE MATTER OF; "RV", A JUDICIAL OFFICER 
A 
,, 
OCTOBER 6, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR 
NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Administration of Justice: 
Cqstigation of trial judge in judicial pronouncement-Propriety of-
Petition by accused u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings on ground c 
of delay in trial-Dismissed by High Court making observations against trial 
judge-Held, observations against the judicial officer being uncalled for, shall 
stand expunged-It is left to the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under 
Article 235 of the Constitution-Constitution of India-Article 235-Judicial 
Notice. 
An accused, facing a criminal trial, filed a petition under s.482 D 
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay at the trial. 
The Single Judge of the High Court hearing the petition, on 8.4.2001, 
directed the trial court to take steps for examining the witnesses on 
24.4.2001, and to explain the delay in concluding the trial. When the 
petition was taken up on 27.4.2001, the counsel for the accused petitioner E 
" 
stated that only 5 witnesses were examined on the specified date. The Court 
directed the petition to be. taken up in the later part of the day and asked 
the Registry to seek an explanation from the trial judge meanwhile on 
telephone. The response received on telephone, which was a gist of the 
written explanation received on the following day, was brought to the 
F 
knowledge of the Court. The Court while dismissing the petition, directed 
in the operative part of the order to 'initiate necessary departmental 
proceedings' 'looking to the conduct of the trial judge' and 'for not 
complying with the order' passed by the High Court on 8.3.2001. The trial 
judge filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking expunction of 
the observations made and direction given by the Single Judge in the G 
judicial order dated 27.4.2001 to the extent they were against him. The 
... 
writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the Judicial Officer filed the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
129 
.H 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Castigating members of the subordinate judiciary does 
no good to the system as placing on public record, the aspersions cast on 
them, shakes the very confidence of the people in judicial institutions. 
[134-AI 
Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, [2001) 7 SCC 148; R.C. Tamrakar 
B and Anr. v. Nidi Lekha, [2001) 8 SCC 431 and "Jn the matter of 'K' a 
Judicial Officer, [2001] 3 SCC 54, relied on. 
1.2. Th_e appellant has in his explanation in writing pointed out the 
huge pendency of cases before him, the number of witnesses (about 60) 
which were required to be examined before concluding the trial, the 
C recalcitrant process serving agency and again the over-burdened clerk in 
·the court is~uing the processes, and at the cap of all these the number of 
different counsel appearing for a number of accused persons who all insist 
on their convenience also being accommodated by the court. The 
explanation is reasonable and satisfactorily explains the reasons for the 
D alleged non-compliance with the orders made by the Single Judge on 8th 
March, 2001. It is a judicially noticeable fact that the subordinate courts 
are over-burdened and are called upon to deal with such number of cases 
as is totally out of proportion with what a Judge can reasonably be 
supposed to handle. [135-C, D, E) 
E 
1.3. The adverse observations made against the appellant in the order 
dated 27.4.2001 and the direction contained therein shall stand expunged 
as the same were uncalled for and should not have been made a part of 
the judicial order. However, it is left to the High Court to initiate any 
proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 
F 235 of the Constitution of India but independently of the observations 
made and direction given in the order dated 27th April, 2001. [135-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1152 
of 2004. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.2003 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B. Crl. M.P. No. 466 of 2002. 
H 
M.R. Calla, Sunil Kumar Jain and S. Borthakur with him for the 
Appellant. 
A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., 
1-•
INTHEMAITEROF; "RV',AJUDICIALOFFICER[LAHOTI,CJ.) 
131 
Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. Leave gra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.