In CRL A NO. 1618/2023- SC - ‘To err is human but forgiving is divine’: Top Court discharges man who unlawfully entered civil judge’s chamber, took pictures of case records, after he tenders unconditional apology to the satisfaction of complainant judge
Justices S Ravindra Bhat & Dipankar Datta [19-05-2023]

Read Order: Neville Dadi Master @ Neville Master v. The State of West Bengal & Anr

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, May 19, 2023: The Supreme Court today discharged a man who had pretended to be a practicing advocate and unlawfully entered the chamber of a civil judge, and also took photographs of case records from his mobile phone, after the accused met the complainant in person on the court’s directions and tendered unqualified apology which was to the satisfaction of the erstwhile civil judge.

The Apex Court, however, sounded a note of caution for the appellant to be careful in future to avoid recurrence of similar incident, as well as appreciated the complainant judge for not precipitating the matter further.

“After all, ‘to err is human but forgiving is divine’,” said a bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta.

The senior counsel appearing for the offender fervently urged the Court to allow the appellant to meet the second respondent (complainant-judge) and tender his unqualified apology for the conduct complained of in the aforesaid complaint. The prayer of a was granted. The appellant was directed to meet the second respondent in person and tender unqualified apology.

The second respondent (complainant judge), in a report placed before the Registry of the Calcutta High Court, expressed that he was “satisfied with such tender”.

The senior counsel submitted that it was an act of indiscretion on the part of the appellant.  However, having realized that he has committed a grave mistake for which no one else is to be faulted, he was now genuinely regretful and undertook not to repeat such conduct in future. He, accordingly, prayed that the Top Court may direct closure of the proceedings upon setting aside the orders of the Special Court and the Calcutta High Court.

The senior counsel appearing for the first respondent left the matter to the discretion of the Court.

“In the light of the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Luthra, which is treated as an undertaking of the appellant to this Court, and bearing in mind that offences under sections 447 and 419 of the Cr. P.C. are compoundable coupled with the satisfaction reported by the second respondent, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in subjecting the appellant to stand trial,” the Bench noted.

“Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this particular case and to give a quietus to the matter, closure of G.R. Case No. 2199 of 2017 which the ACJM is presently seized of against the appellant is warranted upon setting aside of the orders dated 19th September, 2022 and 2nd January, 2023. It is ordered accordingly. The appellant is discharged of the bail bond.”

Case Background:

The petitioner-accused in the case is a law graduate and is enrolled under the Bar Council of Goa. He, however, does not practice as an advocate and works as Manager for a private company.

The erstwhile Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah lodged a report on 9th August, 2017 stating that when he was working in his official chamber at around 1:20 PM, the petitioner entered his chamber and asked if he could talk with respect to some case. The Judge asked him as to why he entered his chamber without any permission. At this the petitioner stated that he wanted to know about an order passed on the previous day. The Judge immediately asked him to leave his chamber and also told him that if he wanted to know about any case, he should enquire in the office of the concerned Court.

Subsequently the Sherestedar attached to his Court came to the chamber with the said person and informed the Judge that the said person was taking photographs from his mobile phone for some orders directly from a case record. The Officer immediately seized the mobile phone and handed over the same to the police officer with the complaint.

On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the erstwhile Civil Judge, FIR under Sections 419/353/447/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above-mentioned penal provisions.

Since the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is exclusively triable by the learned Special Judge, the case was committed to the learned Special Judge, 1st Special Court at Alipore.

The petitioner preferred an application praying for discharging him. The learned Judge upon hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and considering the materials on record held that there was no ground for framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 120B/353 of the Indian Penal code and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge further held that there is prima facie material against the petitioner to frame charge under Sections 447/419 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge transmitted the case record to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) at Sealdah to proceed with the case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 447/419 of the Indian Penal code.

This order of the Special Court was challenged by the appellant in an application under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. before the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court, in its order dated 2nd January, 2023, dismissed the application. The petitioner-accused, via this civil appeal, challenged the Calcutta High Court order before the Top Court.