Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently 'expunged remarks' made by a trial court in an order in which it used words like "negligent" and "insensitive" to describe police officers and blamed them for the delay in completing the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report on voice samples.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that there was no material or occasion before the Trial Court to hold the petitioner guilty for the delay in preparation of the FSL Report by repeatedly terming him as “negligent” and “insensitive”. The Court further opined that passing such comments might impair a person’s confidence, work, and reputation.

In the present case, an FIR was registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 wherein five accused persons were arrested and a chargesheet under Section 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was filed and a supplementary report was also filed to bring on record the FSL Report, which confirmed the seized contraband to be 'Tramadol'. Moreover, voice samples of the accused persons were also taken and sent to FSL for examination. 

The Trial Court had directed the petitioner (police officer) to make efforts to obtain the FSL Report of voice samples, and in response, the petitioner issued a letter requesting the Director of FSL to prepare the FSL Report on a priority basis.

On October 4, 2022, a status report was filed, and the facts were presented before the Trial Court, and on October 13, 2022, the Trial Court used the terms "negligent" and "insensitive" to criticize the petitioner (police officer) and the Investigating Officer (IO), SHO, and ACP involved.

The Trial Court was informed on November 23, 2022, that the FSL Report was still not ready. Thereafter, it again passed remarks against the petitioner (police officer), wherein it was again mentioned that the IO, SHO, and DCP were "negligent persons". On December 7, 2022, the Trial Court made additional comments against the petitioner and other police officers, blaming them for the delay in filing the FSL Report, denied the petitioner's request for exemption from personal appearance, and ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against him.

Subsequently, the petitioner namely Sanjay Kumar Sain sought High Court's indulgence in setting aside the impugned orders to the extent of remarks made and bailable warrants issued against him.

Justice Sharma referred to Section 6, Chapter 1, Part H (“The Judgment”) of the Delhi High Court Rules for “Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases” which pertained to “criticism on the conduct of Police and other officers and warned against such an action by the Courts”. She relied on Apex Court’s Judgment in A.M Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, wherein it had held:

“...judicial restraint and discipline were as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they were to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges”.

The court also placed reliance on Apex Court’s judgment in Rakesh Chand v. State, 2015, wherein, it had expressed views regarding restraint to be observed by the judges while passing comments on the conduct of officers/authorities and held:

“...while dealing with the task of administering justice, a Judge, no doubt had to be acting judicially and giving expression to his views, but he ought to be circumspect while commenting on the conduct of some. The line of discretion was not to be overstepped. The calm and sangfroid of a Judge should be reflected in every judgment, every order; every part of any judgment or order”.

Court noted that the present case was from 2019 and that no charges had been filed against the five accused persons as of yet. It also stated that the impugned orders revealed that the Trial Court's dissatisfaction was based on the prosecution's failure to file the FSL Report of voice samples, for which the IO, SHO, ACP, and DCP were labeled as "negligent and insensitive persons," and the petitioner was directed to personally appear on the next date of hearing.

Regarding the Trial Court's observations against the petitioner that even the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, could not ensure the report was filed on time, the single-judge bench opined that the Trial Court overlooked the fact that the Director of FSL was not under the control of the Commissioner of Police, the present petitioner, or any other police officer.

“It was difficult to believe that the Trial Court had no knowledge of the fact that it was not in the hands of Investigating Officer or the petitioner to have fixed any date for taking the voice samples or to decide the time taken for preparation of the report of the voice samples. FSL, being an independent body, prepared reports according to its own rules and regulations and the petitioner as the DCP of a particular district/zone of Delhi could only write a request letter to the Director of FSL requesting for preparation of report expeditiously”, the court further opined.

Furthermore, it stated, “despite being apprised of the fact that request letters and special messengers had been sent to FSL by the petitioner, still the Trial Court considered it as negligence on petitioner’s behalf that the Director of FSL was not preparing or forwarding the report to the police. The Trial Court could have perused the orders of its own Court, passed by the predecessor Judge, to get a fair idea as to what best could have been done to get the FSL of voice samples prepared on a priority basis”.

Relying on a judgment wherein, the High Court while dealing with a similar case had issued directions for the exercise of judicial restraint, and observed that “judicial officers should refrain from passing denigrating remarks against police officials”, the court opined:

“...whenever the judicial officers were inclined to use harsh language against the investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities and devotion towards their duty, more control and caution must be exercised, since passing such comments might impair a person’s confidence, in addition to having a negative impact on their work and reputation. The loss of reputation suffered by an officer might not get restored even if the remarks were expunged by a higher court. Therefore, a thin wall that existed between the adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on part of authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind and perspective”.

Conclusively, the court allowed the petition and ruled that the remarks made against him shall be expunged/deleted from the impugned orders. Additionally, the court directed the Registrar General to forward a copy of the judgment to all the District and Sessions Judges of Delhi while asking them to ensure the circulation of the judgment among all the Judicial Officers in their Courts for sensitization of Judicial Officers on this issue.

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sain v. State of NCT of Delhi