‘What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord Hewart said’: SC remits back matter to Madras HC as Single Judge retained case file for 5 months after demitting the Office
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [13-02-2024]

Read Order: STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI CHENNAI v. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR  [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 829-830 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 22, 2024: The Supreme Court has clarified that retaining file of a case for a period of five months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on the part of a Judge. The Top Court highlighted Lord Hewart’s saying that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering a matter wherein the Single Judge of the Madras High Court decided two proceedings by the impugned judgment. The first was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the charge sheet in a complaint case pending on the file of the Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai. The second was a Criminal Revision Application challenging the order by which an application for discharge made by the respondents in the same case was rejected by the impugned judgment.  The Judge had quashed the charge sheet, insofar as the first respondent was concerned and passed an order of discharge as regards another accused.

It was argued before the Apex Court that on April 17, 2017, the Single Judge pronounced only one line order declaring the operative part and demitted office on May 26, 2017. The detailed judgment was made available only on October 23, 2017, nearly 5 months after the Judge demitted the office.

The Bench noticed that the operative part was pronounced on April 17, 2017 and there were five weeks available for the Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment running into more than 250 pages had come out after a lapse of 5 months from the date on which the Judge demitted the office. “Thus, it is obvious that even after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us, retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance what has been done in this case”, the Bench observed.

Referring to Lord Hewart’s saying that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done", the Bench asserted, “What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord Hewart said. We cannot support such acts of impropriety and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this Court is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the cases to the High Court for a fresh decision.

Therefore, setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench restored both the matters to the file of the Madras High Court.