MHMD. SHAKEEL Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the High Court of Delhi in its administrative jurisdiction, as conveyed by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Court to all District and Sessions Judges, by Order No. 3999 4009/DHC/Gaz./G 1/2013, dated 3rd August, 2013 ("the impugned decision"). This decision mandates that all cases investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police and being prosecuted anywhere in Delhi would stand transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge 02, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. Consequent to this, by the order of the District and Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi, dated 6th August 2013 (No. 1586/28251 281/F.3(4)/ASJ/Gaz/13) transferred all such cases to the said court.

(2.) THE present writ petitioner's (hereinafter "Shakeel") challenge to these decisions stems from his trial (in S.C.74 78/2009 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi) which has also been transferred. Briefly, the ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts framed charges against Shakeel on 5th February, 2011, under Sections 121/121 A/122/123/302/307/323/427 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sections 16/18/20/23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act,2000. The trial commenced on 31st May, 2011, and from October, 2012 onwards the trial judge ordered that the case be listed every Wednesday, and December, 2012 onwards, that it be listed every Wednesday and Thursday of the month.

(3.) FURTHER , learned counsel admits that although Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.PC") permits appreciation of evidence by a successor judge (as would be the case here), it is argued that Section 326 represents the exception, and not the rule that is to be followed in criminal trials. This, it is argued, is more so when the trial is at an advanced stage and the recording of evidence is nearing the end. In aid of these submissions, counsel relied on two judgements of the Supreme Court: Pal Singh and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 329 and Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 6 SCC 126.